What ever makes a science denialist tick?


I Can Change Your Mind about Climate, Thursday, April 26


ABC1, 8.30pm

There's little more cringe-making than watching two people with fixed positions try to convince each other they're right. And at first it looks as if that's all we're going to get when environmentalist Anna Rose and climate sceptic Nick Minchin are set head-to-head. Quickly, though, this fascinating documentary broadens beyond a he-says-she-says faceoff into not just an examination of climate science but an examination of whether these arguments are worth having at all. Full of surprises.



Perhaps Nick realises his mistake in denying the science.

morning woody

I find it hard to believe they are even talking about this topic still.

havent you taken care of GW???? :D :D

cods wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 5:47am:

morning woody I find it hard to believe they are even talking about this topic still. havent you taken care of GW???? :D :D

The carbon tax is not, and have never been claimed to be, the silver bullet.


It is, for the fifty zillionth time, the beginning step.

Hopefully it may register for you this time.

It's about shifting our economy, and sifting all other economies, onto sustainable footing.

Without doing this, everything is lost. Everything including your family.


So continue being selfish for your self while knowing you are dragging the rest of your family to an early grave.

____ wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 6:29am:

cods wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 5:47am: morning woody I find it hard to believe they are even talking about this topic still. havent you taken care of GW???? :D :D The carbon tax is not, and have never been claimed to be, the silver bullet. It is, for the fifty zillionth time, the beginning step. Hopefully it may register for you this time. It's about shifting our economy, and sifting all other economies, onto sustainable footing. Without doing this, everything is lost. Everything including your family. So continue being selfish for your self while knowing you are dragging the rest of your family to an early grave.

Quite so, it really is hard to believe that caring for the planet we live on, the only planet that can sustain a life form of our type in our solar system, the only planet that we have the ability to reach having never been to another planet is so incredibly difficult. You would think that keeping our life support system in perfect condition would be objective no 1 for us all, but no we would rather have it running on reserve all the time and when it has an issue we use cheap secondhand parts to fix it. It's the low socio attitude, we will eat our resources today and complain when there is nothing left next week, no work, no ecology, no atmosphere, no community but never mind i have it all with no sacrifice the grand kids can go jump.

Will this change your mind about the mann-made catastrophic climate change. The history of the hockey stick and FOI issues. The pseudo climate science fraud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Vz3i0j_J0

nairbe wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 6:59am:

____ wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 6:29am: [quote author=333F3423500 link=1335381863/1#1 date=1335383236]morning woody I find it hard to believe they are even talking about this topic still. havent you taken care of GW???? :D :D The carbon tax is not, and have never been claimed to be, the silver bullet. It is, for the fifty zillionth time, the beginning step. Hopefully it may register for you this time. It's about shifting our economy, and sifting all other economies, onto sustainable footing. Without doing this, everything is lost. Everything including your family. So continue being selfish for your self while knowing you are dragging the rest of your family to an early grave.

Quite so, it really is hard to believe that caring for the planet we live on, the only planet that can sustain a life form of our type in our solar system, the only planet that we have the ability to reach having never been to another planet is so incredibly difficult. You would think that keeping our life support system in perfect condition would be objective no 1 for us all, but no we would rather have it running on reserve all the time and when it has an issue we use cheap secondhand parts to fix it. It's the low socio attitude, we will eat our resources today and complain when there is nothing left next week, no work, no ecology, no atmosphere, no community but never mind i have it all with no sacrifice the grand kids can go jum


oh poohoo what garbage.. so throwing money at it will change it all.. HOHUM..

I have yet to see where throwing money at something saved or stopped it..

didnt stop the starving in Ethiopia did it???

no matter how much they threw...

no offence here but you are so patronising I find it hard to come to grips with you CARBON TAX FANATICS..

the world is changing its called a natural phenomenon... we dont use the horse and cart anymore it was superseded..

and one day soon so will the car and aeroplane be superseded, not in my time or yours.. but it will happen..

mankind is very inventive you know..in fact its only happy if it is changing things day in day out..

industry is being taken over by technology, most of which goes over my head I will grant you

but I do know my car only goes in for a service every once in a while.. where as once upon time it was every few months..why because its improved its cleaner its a fact..I make sure I have all sorts of stars on my appliances or white goods..they are improving on them.. I do all the recycling..I waste very little I wear clothes I bought 20 years ago..dont you tell me I dont care....just because I dont think ..

""oh well lets sit back and throw money at it.. at us are'nt we the clever people?".....what more can we do..we care.. you dont!

I can think of saving a few kids lives RIGHT NOW.. not in 50 years might be a goer...


the first step was taken a few years ago... like I said industry was changing..

just because you believe a picture of Cate standing in front of a "power station" that went out of service 30 years ago..

doesnt mean you have saved the world.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 7:23am:

Will this change your mind about the mann-made catastrophic climate change. The history of the hockey stick and FOI issues. The pseudo climate science fraud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Vz3i0j_J0

DONT BE SILLY PROG.. THEY CALL US BLINKERED   i KNOW WHO i THINK IS BLINKERED..sorry about caps..

I read where Britain is in recession again so I doubt very much they will be following in our footsteps any time soon.

the interesting thing I find with science is they so often come back after 20 years and tell us ooops that didnt make one iota of difference..

My FAVOURITE "Minchinisms" ...






Quote:

NICK MINCHIN, SENATOR, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE: "For 10 years the left internationally have been very successful in exploiting peoples' innate fears about global warming and climate change to achieve their political ends" "For the extreme left it provides the opportunity to do what they've always wanted to do, to sort of de-industrialise the western world. You know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the left, and the, and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion" http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2737676.htm

I'm assuming Malcolm Turnbull and World Vision CEO,the Reverend Tim Costello,
are card holder's in Nick's "extreme left" ?



Also of relevance ...

Minchin's climate conspiracy
November 12, 2009


AND they say that conspiracy theories are the domain of the left ?.

Not so, if you listened to this week's Four Corners program in which the Opposition leader in the Senate, Nick Minchin, outlined his explanation of why efforts to tackle climate change had gained such momentum.

''For the extreme left, it provides the opportunity to do what they have always wanted to do, which is to sort of de-industrialise the Western world.

The collapse of communism was a disaster for the left and, really, they embraced environment as their new religion.''

Which would be funny if he didn't mean it and didn't hold such a senior leadership position in our parliament.


To a large extent, this week's Four Corners program simply laid out in detail what we already knew: that the Liberal and National parties are home to a significant number of climate-change deniers - those who would deny that human activity is a significant contributor to climatic changes.

Whether they are in the majority remains an open question, despite Minchin's bold claim that they are

The climate scepticism of the senior former Howard government minister is well known, but Minchin's comments aired this week are so inflammatory as to require a response.

There can be no more denying his denial.
Clearly his belief is deeply held.
Clearly he is at odds with his party's leadership on the matter.

It is time for him to examine seriously whether it is appropriate for him to hold the office of party leader in the Senate when he has no intention of falling into line with his party's leadership on this issue.

Having the nation's Opposition party in the Senate led by two trenchant climate-change deniers - Senator Barnaby Joyce for the Nationals and Minchin for the Liberals - is untenable.

Minchin should demonstrate the same level of honesty as Malcolm Turnbull, who has staked his leadership over the issue: back me or sack me.

Australia has more to lose than most from a changing climate. Reliant on agriculture, we already are suffering from limited water resources. And yet our cities cling to shorelines that will disappear as seawaters rise.

We should be at the forefront of efforts to tackle climate change, which the vast majority of the credible scientific world tells us is happening - and is the result of human activity.

Business leaders have also accepted the challenge and are demanding solutions and certainty to thrive.

The time for conspiracy theories, and their exponents, is over. The time for action is upon us.



http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/minchins-climate-conspiracy-20091111-i9wf.html#ixzz1t62muFLU





The junk science behind Minchin's climate change denial
14 March 2011

ABC News reported on Friday that Senator Nick Minchin rejects a recent Australian government report about climate change, because Minchin claims the globe is more likely to be cooling than warming.

Ross Garnaut, according to Minchin, "knows nothing about the climate", because Garnaut is an economist, rather than a climate scientist. Minchin went on to cite the work of a climate scientist at the University of Alabama who says that models have generally overstated the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gas emissions, and recent warming has likely been due to a "natural cycle". 

This unnamed scientist is almost certainly Dr. Roy Spencer, a meteorologist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, in the United States.

In climate science, there is a clear consensus. Two recent peer-reviewed studies have shown that 97-98% of working climate scientists think humans are significantly affecting the Earth’s climate.

So why does Senator Minchin glom onto the work of a single scientist, whose views are representative of such a tiny minority?

It turns out that Roy Spencer’s views are on the fringes for good reasons.

Spencer published a 2008 paper in which he used a simple model of the Earth’s climate to show that standard methods for estimating climate sensitivity were greatly overstating warming effects. 

It turns out that other climate scientists (including one that initially gave Spencer’s paper a favourable review) have now published a paper showing Spencer was only able to obtain this result by assuming unrealistic values for various model parameters. 
If realistic values are used, the effect Spencer described is negligible. 

Spencer has done further work in which he claims to show with his simple climate model that, not only is climate sensitivity low, but most of the global warming in the 20th century can be explained by a natural cycle he called the "Pacific Decadal Oscillation" 

Dr. Spencer tried to get this work published, but it didn’t pass peer review.

Politicians like Senator Minchin usually want to be seen as tough-minded iconoclasts who boldly go where the evidence leads them.  In this case, however, we can clearly see that there is no compelling reason to think Roy Spencer’s work trumps that of the rest of the climate science community.  In fact, much of his work is of demonstrably poor quality.

The sordid truth of the matter seems, instead, to be that Senator Minchin simply believed whichever expert would tell him what he wanted to hear.


http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45086.html





"What Makes Nick Tick ?"

I'm damned if I know what makes ANY climate change denier "tick"
ESPECIALLY those with all the DATA and FACTS at their fingertips


But MORE importantly ...


WHAT IS THEIR AGENDA ?i

Havent gone through this document properly yet, but may come in handy for tonights pseudo science show.

A-Z Climate Reality Check

http://cfact.org/pdf/ClimateDepot_A-Z_ClimateRealityCheck.pdf

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 10:19am:

I'm damned if I know what makes ANY climate change denier "tick"

I've never met a "climate change denier".

I think you might be confusing 'AGW' with 'climate change', and 'sceptic' with 'denier'.


buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 10:19am:

WHAT IS THEIR AGENDA ?

An AGW sceptic's "agenda" is finding out the truth.

I do realise, however, that the AGW disciples are not too fond of that prospect.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 10:19am: I'm damned if I know what makes ANY climate change denier "tick" I've never met a "climate change denier". I think you might be confusing 'AGW' with 'climate change', and 'sceptic' with 'denier'. buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 10:19am: WHAT IS THEIR AGENDA ? An AGW sceptic's "agenda" is finding out the truth. I do realise, however, that the AGW disciples are not too fond of that prospect.

the same people that would claim that being a sceptic regarding the existence of God or anything else was a great thing jump on people who are sceptics about AGW. and it isnt as if AGW sceptics are denying science at all. What they are denying is the interpretation of data on a discipline we know almost nothing about. If for instance a few climate predictions actually came true might help but since they are all withgout execption a major bust, the the sceptics position is supporterd more and more.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 6:08pm:

... and it isnt as if AGW sceptics are denying science at all.

Exactly right.

However, the AGW disciples always like to call AGW sceptics "Climate Change Deniers".   ::)

I certainly don't deny the existence of climate change.

Climate change has been happening for a long time now.

I simply don't support the AGW hypothesis.

However, I keep an open mind on the subject.

I'm not willing to gamble on my grand kids future when it comes to climate change and a clean energy future but its obvious that some people are.
Just remember to tell your grand kids what side you were on when the burden is placed wholly on their shoulders.

adelcrow wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 6:39pm:

I'm not willing to gamble on my grand kids future when it comes to climate change and a clean energy future but its obvious that some people are. Just remember to tell your grand kids what side you were on when the burden is placed wholly on their shoulders.

Being an AGW sceptic doesn't put anyone's future in jeopardy.

A little less fear mongering would be good.

adelcrow wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 6:39pm:

I'm not willing to gamble on my grand kids future when it comes to climate change and a clean energy future but its obvious that some people are. Just remember to tell your grand kids what side you were on when the burden is placed wholly on their shoulders.

Your grand kids are more likely to ask 'grandpa, were you one of those idiots that thought the world was going to fry?' as they look to a world that has a bit of a 'cooling problem'. I trust you will be honest.

Is that rose on something. Her pupils are huge in sunlight.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 9:02pm:

Is that rose on something.

Yes. A very high horse.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 7:23am:

Will this change your mind about the mann-made catastrophic climate change. The history of the hockey stick and FOI issues. The pseudo climate science fraud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Vz3i0j_J0

Are you still falling for the climategate hoax, progs. Why does that not surprise me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY&sns=em


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4&sns=em

I watched the program last night and came away from it thinking we really need to move on from discussing if climate change is real or not and instead make changes  IN CASE IT HAPPENS.
I believe its real, as do the overwhelming majority of climate experts,and it seems from the latest polls,90% of Australians.
So we shouldn't be arguing about if its changing or we'll be still doing it when its too late.
Instead of arguing about climate change we should be putting all our efforts into renewable clean power sources that will make power CHEAPER and CLEANER, if that also has the effect of minimising the effects of climate change we have achieved the objective.
It shouldn't matter to the skeptics if we change our power sources and they make power cheaper, they should embrace it.

MOTR wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 7:54am:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 7:23am: Will this change your mind about the mann-made catastrophic climate change. The history of the hockey stick and FOI issues. The pseudo climate science fraud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Vz3i0j_J0 Are you still falling for the climategate hoax, progs. Why does that not surprise me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY&sns=em http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4&sns=em

The situation on the video is not a hoax and frankly I dont give a shi. what does or does not surprise you.

skippy. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 8:42am:

I watched the program last night and came away from it thinking we really need to move on from discussing if climate change is real or not and instead make changes  IN CASE IT HAPPENS.

Whether climate change is real or not isn't the issue.

Nobody denies climate change.

The issue is Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

There's just not enough credible, reliable evidence to conclusively demonstrate that humans are causing the globe to warm.

Climate change is real.  It's been going on for years.

AGW, however, is a dubious hypothesis.

Quantum wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 11:58pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 9:02pm: Is that rose on something. Yes. A very high horse.

;D   Yes, indeed.

She really did come out looking silly in that show last night.

At one point she refused to debate the issue with someone and accused him of making things up.  When asked what he had made up, she said "google it".

Pathetic.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

There's just not enough credible, reliable evidence to conclusively demonstrate that humans are causing the globe to warm. Climate change is real.  It's been going on for years. AGW, however, is a dubious hypothesis.

OK, assume that global warming isn't caused by humans. But the climate does change, as you rightly point out. So, the climate is changing due to some non-human effect.

What do we do about it?

How about reducing CO2 in the atmosphere to reduce greenhouse effects and so help cool the planet??

Sound familiar?

The best thing to come out of the show was the thought I have had all along. Technology will evolve. Get the greenies to spend their hard earned on new expensive technology and have the governments of the world to organise a masse R&D project to make close to free energy or at the very least, cheap energy.

Within 50 years, we would have what we want and the our CO2 levels can go to virtually zero. Look what we have achieved within 100 years technology wise. Cheap virtually free energy is within our grasp and the world boiling is no where near our grasp.

Gist wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 2:27pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 11:13am: There's just not enough credible, reliable evidence to conclusively demonstrate that humans are causing the globe to warm. Climate change is real.  It's been going on for years. AGW, however, is a dubious hypothesis. OK, assume that global warming isn't caused by humans. But the climate does change, as you rightly point out. So, the climate is changing due to some non-human effect. What do we do about it? How about reducing CO2 in the atmosphere to reduce greenhouse effects and so help cool the planet?? Sound familiar?

We put all our efforts into renewable energies to make them much cheaper, that way we reduce coal fired power stations ,help the environment by releasing less pollution and appease the  CONFUSIONALISTS in the process by generating cleaner cheaper power, problem solved.
We don't have to agree on how why or if with climate change, just do something about it.

skippy. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 2:59pm:

We put all our efforts into renewable energies to make them much cheaper, that way we reduce coal fired power stations ,help the environment by releasing less pollution and appease the  CONFUSIONALISTS in the process by generating cleaner cheaper power, problem solved. We don't have to agree on how why or if with climate change, just do something about it.

I'm happy with that.

And stop the silly fear mongering.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 3:00pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 2:59pm: We put all our efforts into renewable energies to make them much cheaper, that way we reduce coal fired power stations ,help the environment by releasing less pollution and appease the  CONFUSIONALISTS in the process by generating cleaner cheaper power, problem solved. We don't have to agree on how why or if with climate change, just do something about it. I'm happy with that. And stop the silly fear mongering.

Believing what the overwhelming majority of experts say is true is not fear mongering. BUT, not believing them is akin to the world is flat brigade.

skippy. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 3:04pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 3:00pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 2:59pm: We put all our efforts into renewable energies to make them much cheaper, that way we reduce coal fired power stations ,help the environment by releasing less pollution and appease the  CONFUSIONALISTS in the process by generating cleaner cheaper power, problem solved. We don't have to agree on how why or if with climate change, just do something about it. I'm happy with that. And stop the silly fear mongering. Believing what the overwhelming majority of experts say is true is not fear mongering. BUT, not believing them is akin to the world is flat brigade.

Saying we are "wrecking the planet", is fear mongering.

Constantly saying "think of our grandchildren", is fear mongering.

It's what the AGW disciples do best.

Not believing a few scientists is nothing like believing the earth is flat.  Unbelievable nonsense.  Typical AGW disciple garbage designed to turn attention away from the fact that their hypothesis is dubious.

skippy. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 2:59pm:

We put all our efforts into renewable energies to make them much cheaper, that way we reduce coal fired power stations ,help the environment by releasing less pollution and appease the  CONFUSIONALISTS in the process by generating cleaner cheaper power, problem solved. We don't have to agree on how why or if with climate change, just do something about it.

Good, I'll go along with that.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 3:10pm:

Saying we are "wrecking the planet", is fear mongering. Constantly saying "think of our grandchildren", is fear mongering. It's what the AGW disciples do best. Not believing a few scientists is nothing like believing the earth is flat.  Unbelievable nonsense.  Typical AGW disciple garbage designed to turn attention away from the fact that their hypothesis is dubious.

There ya go. Two posts in and you're back to debating the science again. Has it ever occurred to you that your "fear mongering" could be a response to such denialism?

By the way, in their day there were very few who understood that the earth was not flat.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 3:10pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 3:04pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 3:00pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 2:59pm: We put all our efforts into renewable energies to make them much cheaper, that way we reduce coal fired power stations ,help the environment by releasing less pollution and appease the  CONFUSIONALISTS in the process by generating cleaner cheaper power, problem solved. We don't have to agree on how why or if with climate change, just do something about it. I'm happy with that. And stop the silly fear mongering. Believing what the overwhelming majority of experts say is true is not fear mongering. BUT, not believing them is akin to the world is flat brigade. Saying we are "wrecking the planet", is fear mongering. Constantly saying "think of our grandchildren", is fear mongering. It's what the AGW disciples do best. Not believing a few scientists is nothing like believing the earth is flat.  Unbelievable nonsense.  Typical AGW disciple garbage designed to turn attention away from the fact that their hypothesis is dubious.

No its not, not caring about what we are doing is putting my child's future at risk, thats why confusionalists piss me off so much, they are so bloody arrogant, but most of you will be dead before the worst occurs. I hope you let your offspring know your opinion, so they can blame the likes of you when it all falls apart.  It wouldn't bother me if it was just you affected, but my child could well be affected because of the actions of the likes of you.

Gist wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 3:27pm:

By the way, in their day there were very few who understood that the earth was not flat.

Exactly.

And I suspect that the AGW disciples will turn out to be today's flat earthers.

I'm still keeping an open mind though.

skippy. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 3:29pm:

No its not, not caring about what we are doing is putting my child's future at risk, thats why confusionalists piss me off so much, they are so bloody arrogant, but most of you will be dead before the worst occurs. I hope you let your offspring know your opinion, so they can blame the likes of you when it all falls apart.  It wouldn't bother me if it was just you affected, but my child could well be affected because of the actions of the likes of you.

And the fear mongering continues.

No solid, credible, reliable science: just fear mongering, abuse and name calling.

You AGW disciples need to change your tune.  Seriously.   ::)

The world is not flat, Bolty is not smart, Abbott is not going to be PM, and AGW is a dubious hypothesis.

Stop the fear mongering, OK?  People might just pay you a little more attention then.   ;)

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 3:36pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 3:29pm: No its not, not caring about what we are doing is putting my child's future at risk, thats why confusionalists piss me off so much, they are so bloody arrogant, but most of you will be dead before the worst occurs. I hope you let your offspring know your opinion, so they can blame the likes of you when it all falls apart.  It wouldn't bother me if it was just you affected, but my child could well be affected because of the actions of the likes of you. And the fear mongering continues. No solid, credible, reliable science: just fear mongering, abuse and name calling. You AGW disciples need to change your tune.  Seriously.   ::) The world is not flat, Bolty is not smart, Abbott is not going to be PM, and AGW is a dubious hypothesis. Stop the fear mongering, OK?  People might just pay you a little more attention then.   ;)

You mistake me for someone that gives a sh it about what you think, I care less if I offend you or not, if you cant handle reality,tuff. I don't expect confusionalists to listen to me, you are in the minority,where you belong. Your views are offensive to anyone with a brain.  ::)

Your views are offensive to anyone with a brain.


By that I take it you find his views enlightening roopoo.

blackadder wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 3:54pm:

Your views are offensive to anyone with a brain. By that I take it you find his views enlightening roopoo.

Thanks for the troll, queenofthefibrodump, nice to you unbanned,FOR A CHANGE. ;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

You mistake me for someone that gives a sh it about what you think, I care less if I offend you or not, if you cant handle reality,tuff. I don't expect confusionalists to listen to me, you are in the minority,where you belong. Your views are offensive to anyone with a brain.  ::)

No solid, credible, reliable science: just fear mongering, abuse and name calling.   ::)

Will it ever end?

Oh right, when the world ends next week   ;)

I look forward to the day.

skippy. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

...  I care less if I offend you or not, ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw

skippy. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

You mistake me for someone that gives a sh it about what you think, I care less if I offend you or not, if you cant handle reality,tuff. I don't expect confusionalists to listen to me, you are in the minority,where you belong. Your views are offensive to anyone with a brain.  ::)

Nice conciliatory, pleasant post that you are so well known for making.

OK, I watched that video, I couldn't care less. ;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 4:32pm:

OK, I watched that video, I couldn't care less. ;D ;D ;D

;D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 3:46pm: You mistake me for someone that gives a sh it about what you think, I care less if I offend you or not, if you cant handle reality,tuff. I don't expect confusionalists to listen to me, you are in the minority,where you belong. Your views are offensive to anyone with a brain.  ::) Nice conciliatory, pleasant post that you are so well known for making.

I'm glad I didn't disappoint you ,my little eclectic country shopper.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 3:00pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 2:59pm: We put all our efforts into renewable energies to make them much cheaper, that way we reduce coal fired power stations ,help the environment by releasing less pollution and appease the  CONFUSIONALISTS in the process by generating cleaner cheaper power, problem solved. We don't have to agree on how why or if with climate change, just do something about it. I'm happy with that. And stop the silly fear mongering.

Terrific. Isn't that what the current government is doing.

skippy. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 3:36pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 3:29pm: No its not, not caring about what we are doing is putting my child's future at risk, thats why confusionalists piss me off so much, they are so bloody arrogant, but most of you will be dead before the worst occurs. I hope you let your offspring know your opinion, so they can blame the likes of you when it all falls apart.  It wouldn't bother me if it was just you affected, but my child could well be affected because of the actions of the likes of you. And the fear mongering continues. No solid, credible, reliable science: just fear mongering, abuse and name calling. You AGW disciples need to change your tune.  Seriously.   ::) The world is not flat, Bolty is not smart, Abbott is not going to be PM, and AGW is a dubious hypothesis. Stop the fear mongering, OK?  People might just pay you a little more attention then.   ;) You mistake me for someone that gives a sh it about what you think, I care less if I offend you or not, if you cant handle reality,tuff. I don't expect confusionalists to listen to me, you are in the minority,where you belong. Your views are offensive to anyone with a brain.  ::)

The general consensus on here skippy is that you are an abusive bore who is chroncially and literally stupid. NOBODY takes what you say seriously. You sound like and act like a fool.

skippy. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 4:32pm:

OK, I watched that video, I couldn't care less. ;D ;D ;D

Roughly transated: 'i didnt understand it'

Quote:

The Yale-George Mason University poll being released Thursday found that 76% of Americans support regulating carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas pollutant and that two-thirds believe the U.S. should pursue policies to reduce its carbon footprint.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-enviro-poll-20120426,0,5490023.story

Perhaps the weird weather they are experiencing in the US is concentrating people's attention.

MOTR wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 4:02am:

Quote: The Yale-George Mason University poll being released Thursday found that 76% of Americans support regulating carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas pollutant and that two-thirds believe the U.S. should pursue policies to reduce its carbon footprint. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-enviro-poll-20120426,0,5490023.story Perhaps the weird weather they are experiencing in the US is concentrating people's attention.

Perhaps it is a BS poll to conjure up fake support. Wouldn't be the first or last time the left try that on.

Looks like lefties dont like giving equal time to the other side. Hardly a surprise when you know where the ideology has its roots.

-------------
An Australian television documentary that gives equal weight to a climate sceptic and a believer has been strongly criticised by scientists as unfairly skewing the evidence on global warming.

Love this stupid statement
Australian documentary gives 'misleading impression that the debate on the science of climate change is not settled'

Then they go onto making all the strange and expected BS about the other side.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/26/climate-change-sceptics-australian-tv-show

Quote:

"At best, only a couple of per cent of the world's climate scientists query the basic science so having an equal proportion of sceptics on any programme totally biases the debate," said Professor Andy Pittman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.

There is no doubt that the media has created the illusion of a hotly contested debate. Sure there are your 1 or 2% of mavericks who robustly dispute the consensus position, but that is true of most issues we consider settled. Providing 50% of time to such a small number of voices creates the false impression that there are more voices questioning AGW than there actually are. Indeed, many people in Australia are being exposed to mediums that give virtually no time to those who support AGW, saturating them with AGW skepticism.

While I believe this criticism to be a fair criticism, I'm not sure it should extend to the documentary in question. However, I completely understand the frustration of our climate science pathfinders who are being thwarted in their attempts to communicate the perils that lie down the path we stubbornly follow.

cods wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 7:42am:

nairbe wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 6:59am: ____ wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 6:29am: [quote author=333F3423500 link=1335381863/1#1 date=1335383236]morning woody I find it hard to believe they are even talking about this topic still. havent you taken care of GW???? :D :D The carbon tax is not, and have never been claimed to be, the silver bullet. It is, for the fifty zillionth time, the beginning step. Hopefully it may register for you this time. It's about shifting our economy, and sifting all other economies, onto sustainable footing. Without doing this, everything is lost. Everything including your family. So continue being selfish for your self while knowing you are dragging the rest of your family to an early grave. Quite so, it really is hard to believe that caring for the planet we live on, the only planet that can sustain a life form of our type in our solar system, the only planet that we have the ability to reach having never been to another planet is so incredibly difficult. You would think that keeping our life support system in perfect condition would be objective no 1 for us all, but no we would rather have it running on reserve all the time and when it has an issue we use cheap secondhand parts to fix it. It's the low socio attitude, we will eat our resources today and complain when there is nothing left next week, no work, no ecology, no atmosphere, no community but never mind i have it all with no sacrifice the grand kids can go jum oh poohoo what garbage.. so throwing money at it will change it all.. HOHUM.. I have yet to see where throwing money at something saved or stopped it.. didnt stop the starving in Ethiopia did it??? no matter how much they threw... no offence here but you are so patronising I find it hard to come to grips with you CARBON TAX FANATICS.. the world is changing its called a natural phenomenon... we dont use the horse and cart anymore it was superseded.. and one day soon so will the car and aeroplane be superseded, not in my time or yours.. but it will happen.. mankind is very inventive you know..in fact its only happy if it is changing things day in day out.. industry is being taken over by technology, most of which goes over my head I will grant you but I do know my car only goes in for a service every once in a while.. where as once upon time it was every few months..why because its improved its cleaner its a fact..I make sure I have all sorts of stars on my appliances or white goods..they are improving on them.. I do all the recycling..I waste very little I wear clothes I bought 20 years ago..dont you tell me I dont care....just because I dont think .. ""oh well lets sit back and throw money at it.. at us are'nt we the clever people?".....what more can we do..we care.. you dont! I can think of saving a few kids lives RIGHT NOW.. not in 50 years might be a goer... the first step was taken a few years ago... like I said industry was changing.. just because you believe a picture of Cate standing in front of a "power station" that went out of service 30 years ago.. doesnt mean you have saved the world.

And I bet that power station (adorned by Cate) was belching black smoke--

Cate is a good actress and she should stick to acting.

It is a pity she has revealed her beliefs or her stupidity. I used to watch all her films now I shrink when I see her on the screen.

My question is, is she a dumbbell who has been sucked in by this hoax or is she deriving some benefit from siding with the stinking leftards?

MOTR wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 8:47am:

Quote: "At best, only a couple of per cent of the world's climate scientists query the basic science so having an equal proportion of sceptics on any programme totally biases the debate," said Professor Andy Pittman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. There is no doubt that the media has created the illusion of a hotly contested debate. Sure there are your 1 or 2% of mavericks who robustly dispute the consensus position, but that is true of most issues we consider settled. Providing 50% of time to such a small number of voices creates the false impression that there are more voices questioning AGW than there actually are. Indeed, many people in Australia are being exposed to mediums that give virtually no time to those who support AGW, saturating them with AGW skepticism. While I believe this criticism to be a fair criticism, I'm not sure it should extend to the documentary in question. However, I completely understand the frustration of our climate science pathfinders who are being thwarted in their attempts to communicate the perils that lie down the path we stubbornly follow.

You do realize that in the time of Galileo, the vast majority of 'scientists' were certain the sun revolved around the earth?
A small percentage believed the earth revolved in an orbit around the sun.

The majority are not always right - and at times - have been catastrophically wrong.

Or do you take a 'safety in numbers' view?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 7:36pm:

adelcrow wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 6:39pm: I'm not willing to gamble on my grand kids future when it comes to climate change and a clean energy future but its obvious that some people are. Just remember to tell your grand kids what side you were on when the burden is placed wholly on their shoulders. Your grand kids are more likely to ask 'grandpa, were you one of those idiots that thought the world was going to fry?' as they look to a world that has a bit of a 'cooling problem'. I trust you will be honest.

I doubt that he has any grandchildren or anybody to care about and that's why he is helping the leftards to destroy this country with hoaxes.

If pensioners are going to be compensated for this carbon "dioxide" tax (CO2 that is a clear gas
and necessary for all living things) many care about the future of their descendants so won't be backing Labor or Greens during the next election.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:09am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 8:47am: Quote: "At best, only a couple of per cent of the world's climate scientists query the basic science so having an equal proportion of sceptics on any programme totally biases the debate," said Professor Andy Pittman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. There is no doubt that the media has created the illusion of a hotly contested debate. Sure there are your 1 or 2% of mavericks who robustly dispute the consensus position, but that is true of most issues we consider settled. Providing 50% of time to such a small number of voices creates the false impression that there are more voices questioning AGW than there actually are. Indeed, many people in Australia are being exposed to mediums that give virtually no time to those who support AGW, saturating them with AGW skepticism. While I believe this criticism to be a fair criticism, I'm not sure it should extend to the documentary in question. However, I completely understand the frustration of our climate science pathfinders who are being thwarted in their attempts to communicate the perils that lie down the path we stubbornly follow. You do realize that in the time of Galileo, the vast majority of 'scientists' were certain the sun revolved around the earth? A small percentage believed the earth revolved in an orbit around the sun. The majority are not always right - and at times - have been catastrophically wrong. Or do you take a 'safety in numbers' view?

Ridiculous analogy. Today's scientists are using the evidence based scientific method that Galileo pioneered. If there was a Galileo type maverick out there who had the scientific evidence to disprove AGW his position would quickly gain traction amongst other scientists. That has not happened. If you believe that scientific methods have not improved since the time of Galileo, it would explain your willingness to discard the vast bulk of scientific evidence in this field.

MOTR wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:36am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 9:09am: MOTR wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 8:47am: Quote: "At best, only a couple of per cent of the world's climate scientists query the basic science so having an equal proportion of sceptics on any programme totally biases the debate," said Professor Andy Pittman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. There is no doubt that the media has created the illusion of a hotly contested debate. Sure there are your 1 or 2% of mavericks who robustly dispute the consensus position, but that is true of most issues we consider settled. Providing 50% of time to such a small number of voices creates the false impression that there are more voices questioning AGW than there actually are. Indeed, many people in Australia are being exposed to mediums that give virtually no time to those who support AGW, saturating them with AGW skepticism. While I believe this criticism to be a fair criticism, I'm not sure it should extend to the documentary in question. However, I completely understand the frustration of our climate science pathfinders who are being thwarted in their attempts to communicate the perils that lie down the path we stubbornly follow. You do realize that in the time of Galileo, the vast majority of 'scientists' were certain the sun revolved around the earth? A small percentage believed the earth revolved in an orbit around the sun. The majority are not always right - and at times - have been catastrophically wrong. Or do you take a 'safety in numbers' view? Ridiculous analogy. Today's scientists are using the evidence based scientific method that Galileo pioneered. If there was a Galileo type maverick out there who had the scientific evidence to disprove AGW his position would quickly gain traction amongst other scientists. That has not happened. If you believe that scientific methods have not improved since the time of Galileo, it would explain your willingness to discard the vast bulk of scientific evidence in this field.

For starters, there is no climate scientist that has proved the theory and the climate science has taken science to pseudo science and peer-review to a joke.

What would prove AGW to your satisfaction, progs?

What bit has not been proven to your satisfaction. The properties of CO2 that allow it to absorb and kick back radiated heat, the directly observed increase in atmospheric CO2 brought about by human activity, the satellite measurements that show us less energy is escaping to space at the CO2 absorption wavelength or is it the ocean and temperature measurements that show us our planet is continuing to warm.