Just out of back to back La Nina's and remarkably the month of April was still the 5th hottest on record. With expectations of an oncoming El Nino, record high temperatures seem inevitable before the end of the year.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201204-201204.gif


This was the 36th consecutive April and 326th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last April with below average temperature was April 1976. The last month with a below-average temperature was February 1985.

I live up in the mountains and still have tomato seedling appearing in the compost.

Wait until La Nina dries out the Blue Mountains and Western Sydney ... along with the rest of Australia.


Thanks a lot deniers for increasing the risk ... and insurance policies for all Australians

---

The earth has warm and cooled for many millions of years.

Long long time before even humans were here.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 9:39am:

The earth has warm and cooled for many millions of years. Long long time before even humans were here.

Yes. No one disputes that. Do you have a point. Let me guess A, B and C have caused warming in the past therefore we can exclude D as the current cause of warming. That my friend is an illogical argument. While you are studying in Australia I'd suggest a critical reasoning course.

You know too all of the other planets, they are either warming or cooling too.

None with human actions on them.

I think people sometimes they need to stop and think what they are saying. Of the earth time, we (people) has been here for about 0.000000001% of the time of the Earth - maybe less.

Yet the earth has become very very hot, very very cold and in between this.

Please, show perspective on this subject.

Nature responds to CO2, whether we are here or not. It just so happens we are here and the cause of rising atmospheric CO2 is us this time.

Any idea why it is warming at the moment, Avram?

See all that warming up in the Arctic. Well once the billions of tones of methane and carbon dioxide are released by the thawing of tundra soils, and once the arctic sea ice disappears reducing the albedo effect, nature will dominate any influence we have on temperature. Global warming will become a runway train.

It is the responsibility of China, USA and India.

You know they 3 cause 50% of world CO2?

In Israel for example we cause 0.1%.

You see who need to take action?

Australia - you are less than 0.13%. Who cares what you do? it dont matter to world total.

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 10:03am:

Any idea why it is warming at the moment, Avram?

You know the planet of Mars is warming at same rate.
Is that humans too?

The temperature on Mars is a very indirect way of measuring solar output. Direct measures of solar radiation tell us that solar output is actually decreasing.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 10:13am:

It is the responsibility of China, USA and India. You know they 3 cause 50% of world CO2? In Israel for example we cause 0.1%. You see who need to take action? Australia - you are less than 0.13%. Who cares what you do? it dont matter to world total.

Free riders have no credibility and collectively contribute substantially to the problem.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 10:13am:

It is the responsibility of China, USA and India. You know they 3 cause 50% of world CO2? In Israel for example we cause 0.1%. You see who need to take action? Australia - you are less than 0.13%. Who cares what you do? it dont matter to world total.

Like Iran has 0.001% of the nuclear weapons.

Why act on Iran

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 10:32am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 10:13am: It is the responsibility of China, USA and India. You know they 3 cause 50% of world CO2? In Israel for example we cause 0.1%. You see who need to take action? Australia - you are less than 0.13%. Who cares what you do? it dont matter to world total. Free riders have no credibility and collectively contribute substantially to the problem.

3 countries make up 50%.

Tell me - if one of these three do something - is it the same as the Falkland Islands or Guadaloupe doing some action?

____ wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 10:37am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 10:13am: It is the responsibility of China, USA and India. You know they 3 cause 50% of world CO2? In Israel for example we cause 0.1%. You see who need to take action? Australia - you are less than 0.13%. Who cares what you do? it dont matter to world total. Like Iran has 0.001% of the nuclear weapons. Why act on Iran

Because Iran directly threatens the safety of the Israeli people.

But this is not to do with this topic./

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 10:14am:

MOTR wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 10:03am: Any idea why it is warming at the moment, Avram? You know the planet of Mars is warming at same rate. Is that humans too?

Link


Last I heard, this propaganda died a horrid death ... like the Australian that died in the wildfires caused by AGW.


Why are the denialists forcing up the cost of living and attacking our wealth by their inaction.

Stop the denialists attack on your wealth by challenging their propaganda where ever you see it.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 10:38am:

____ wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 10:37am: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 10:13am: It is the responsibility of China, USA and India. You know they 3 cause 50% of world CO2? In Israel for example we cause 0.1%. You see who need to take action? Australia - you are less than 0.13%. Who cares what you do? it dont matter to world total. Like Iran has 0.001% of the nuclear weapons. Why act on Iran Because Iran directly threatens the safety of the Israeli people. But this is not to do with this topic./

And AGW is a direct threat to ALL Australians.

But you understand it make no difference at all what Australia do.
You are 0.13%!!!!

China is 30%!!!!

All countries have a moral obligation to do their bit. Too many free riders and we are all in big trouble. Each country that comes on board brings us one step closer to a collective response. Each country that reneges on their moral duty takes us one step back.

Technology developed in Australia crosses international borders and its impact can be felt worldwide. what happens in Australia is important.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 1:48pm:

But you understand it make no difference at all what Australia do. You are 0.13%!!!! China is 30%!!!!

Prove that Australia acting on her carbon footprint makes no difference.

i.e
Australian Research and Development produces a cheap,green and clean power source, financed via a carbon price, that is exported to the world.

Would this make a difference?

____ wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 2:21pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 1:48pm: But you understand it make no difference at all what Australia do. You are 0.13%!!!! China is 30%!!!! Prove that Australia acting on her carbon footprint makes no difference.

You think a country that makes 0.13% like Australia or 0.1% like we in Israel is the same impact as the worst of 30% planet emissions??

You really need me to prove this??

It is simply mathematics!

China cuts 10% and it will be 3 times the total of Australia or Israel's emission now!!!

You need this explained to you?  :o

I did not say do nothing

But in Israel we are classed as developing country and we are only 0.1% so we do not matter.
We still do some things but it is not a priority for us.

Big countrys must act before we do.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

____ wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 2:21pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 1:48pm: But you understand it make no difference at all what Australia do. You are 0.13%!!!! China is 30%!!!! Prove that Australia acting on her carbon footprint makes no difference. You think a country that makes 0.13% like Australia or 0.1% like we in Israel is the same impact as the worst of 30% planet emissions?? You really need me to prove this?? It is simply mathematics! China cuts 10% and it will be 3 times the total of Australia or Israel's emission now!!! You need this explained to you?  :o

How would China and the rest of the world cut its carbon pollution to sustainable levels?

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 2:35pm:

I did not say do nothing But in Israel we are classed as developing country and we are only 0.1% so we do not matter. We still do some things but it is not a priority for us. Big countrys must act before we do.

Why do people living in poverty have to cut back their lifestyles, while those that over consume, in first world nations, ramp up their lifestyles and carbon pollution even more.

Like to explain your logic?

____ wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 2:35pm: I did not say do nothing But in Israel we are classed as developing country and we are only 0.1% so we do not matter. We still do some things but it is not a priority for us. Big countrys must act before we do. Why do people living in poverty have to cut back their lifestyles, while those that over consume, in first world nations, ramp up their lifestyles and carbon pollution even more. Like to explain your logic?

Who is saying first world and third world nations?
You know my country is class by UN as 'developing country' so no i do not think this way thank you.

I say that the worst polluters can make a difference.

A country (first world) - Australia pollution 0.13%.

A country (third world) - Israel pollution 0.1%.

If we stop all pollution we stop 0.23%.

Our total pollution is just less than 1% of China's pollution.

So my friend who can make a difference?
The country who pollutes 30% of the world total or the country who does 0.1%.

It is simply mathematics.

____ wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 2:54pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 2:34pm: ____ wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 2:21pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 1:48pm: But you understand it make no difference at all what Australia do. You are 0.13%!!!! China is 30%!!!! Prove that Australia acting on her carbon footprint makes no difference. You think a country that makes 0.13% like Australia or 0.1% like we in Israel is the same impact as the worst of 30% planet emissions?? You really need me to prove this?? It is simply mathematics! China cuts 10% and it will be 3 times the total of Australia or Israel's emission now!!! You need this explained to you?  :o How would China and the rest of the world cut its carbon pollution to sustainable levels?

Many ways.
Stop building dirty coal power stations.
China is building more coal power stations than all rest of world add together - did you know this?

Also nuclear, this can be low emission.

China, USA and India need to cut their pollution. Only USA is doing this now. Both others are increasing and make problem worse.

Israel - we are still 0.1% - we do not matter.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 3:00pm:

____ wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 2:56pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 2:35pm: I did not say do nothing But in Israel we are classed as developing country and we are only 0.1% so we do not matter. We still do some things but it is not a priority for us. Big countrys must act before we do. Why do people living in poverty have to cut back their lifestyles, while those that over consume, in first world nations, ramp up their lifestyles and carbon pollution even more. Like to explain your logic? Who is saying first world and third world nations? You know my country is class by UN as 'developing country' so no i do not think this way thank you. I say that the worst polluters can make a difference. A country (first world) - Australia pollution 0.13%. A country (third world) - Israel pollution 0.1%. If we stop all pollution we stop 0.23%. Our total pollution is just less than 1% of China's pollution. So my friend who can make a difference? The country who pollutes 30% of the world total or the country who does 0.1%. It is simply mathematics.

Yes simple maths.

Australians create 400% more than their Chinese friends.

Why do a per capita chinese person have to reduce his/her carbon footprint, while Clive Palmer increases his?


How is this fair?

I dont care about fair.

I care about reducing pollution.

If Australia reduces it goes down from 0.13%.

If China reduces it goes down from 30%.

China matters, Australia is just so small it make no difference.

Who cares about fair?

Care about the problem and fixing it.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 3:02pm:

____ wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 2:54pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 2:34pm: ____ wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 2:21pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 1:48pm: But you understand it make no difference at all what Australia do. You are 0.13%!!!! China is 30%!!!! Prove that Australia acting on her carbon footprint makes no difference. You think a country that makes 0.13% like Australia or 0.1% like we in Israel is the same impact as the worst of 30% planet emissions?? You really need me to prove this?? It is simply mathematics! China cuts 10% and it will be 3 times the total of Australia or Israel's emission now!!! You need this explained to you?  :o How would China and the rest of the world cut its carbon pollution to sustainable levels? Many ways. Stop building dirty coal power stations. China is building more coal power stations than all rest of world add together - did you know this? Also nuclear, this can be low emission. China, USA and India need to cut their pollution. Only USA is doing this now. Both others are increasing and make problem worse. Israel - we are still 0.1% - we do not matter.

China is building tiny, highly efficient coal power stations ... so the one a week is only half the truth.

China is also world leaders in some green energy technology like wind.

Now you said the USA is cutting their pollution ... How?

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 3:09pm:

I dont care about fair. I care about reducing pollution. If Australia reduces it goes down from 0.13%. If China reduces it goes down from 30%. China matters, Australia is just so small it make no difference. Who cares about fair? Care about the problem and fixing it.

And thats your tactic. You want unfair outcomes so you can ride on the back of Chinese and Indians.

Australia is one of the biggest polluters per capita. If the biggest polluters have to act, then this includes Australia.

Why is the target of the USA to REDUCE their total pollution but China's target over same year is to INCREASE total pollution?

Even though China already is world's worst polluter?

If you care for the environment why do you think this is not bad?

____ wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 3:12pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 3:09pm: I dont care about fair. I care about reducing pollution. If Australia reduces it goes down from 0.13%. If China reduces it goes down from 30%. China matters, Australia is just so small it make no difference. Who cares about fair? Care about the problem and fixing it. And thats your tactic. You want unfair outcomes so you can ride on the back of Chinese and Indians. Australia is one of the biggest polluters per capita. If the biggest polluters have to act, then this includes Australia.

I care about reducing total pollution.

Do you?

You want to allow China to keep pollution increasing? More than 30%?
Maybe to 40%?
50%?

Why are you happy to see pollution increase?

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

____ wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 3:12pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 3:09pm: I dont care about fair. I care about reducing pollution. If Australia reduces it goes down from 0.13%. If China reduces it goes down from 30%. China matters, Australia is just so small it make no difference. Who cares about fair? Care about the problem and fixing it. And thats your tactic. You want unfair outcomes so you can ride on the back of Chinese and Indians. Australia is one of the biggest polluters per capita. If the biggest polluters have to act, then this includes Australia. I care about reducing total pollution. Do you? You want to allow China to keep pollution increasing? More than 30%? Maybe to 40%? 50%? Why are you happy to see pollution increase?

Israel creates more carbon per person than China

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/CO2_per_capita_per_country.png

If we look historically, China has contributed not so much to the levels of carbon in the atmosphere:

Historical responsibility for climate impact (1880–2004)

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/figure12.png

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 10:28am:

The temperature on Mars is a very indirect way of measuring solar output. Direct measures of solar radiation tell us that solar output is actually decreasing.

excsue me? Mars temperature is increasing and that is because soalr output is decreasing?

I just love all these graphs. Im sure in 20 years time these same graphs will still be produced and shown  as evidence of global warming while sydney harbour ices up.

So no, I dont believe it. Ive read so many articles, seen so many graphs and not seen any actual evidence of any of it. Every climate prediction fails, every model is a limp disaster and whats worse the temperature is still rising apparently despite record cold spells. And no climate scientiest has apparently EVER done anythign unprofessional unethical or made a mistake, Just look at all the reviews and investigations. Not once haev they ever done anything wrong.

and if you belive that you will believe anything.

and apparently. do.

falah wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 3:28pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 3:14pm: ____ wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 3:12pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 3:09pm: I dont care about fair. I care about reducing pollution. If Australia reduces it goes down from 0.13%. If China reduces it goes down from 30%. China matters, Australia is just so small it make no difference. Who cares about fair? Care about the problem and fixing it. And thats your tactic. You want unfair outcomes so you can ride on the back of Chinese and Indians. Australia is one of the biggest polluters per capita. If the biggest polluters have to act, then this includes Australia. I care about reducing total pollution. Do you? You want to allow China to keep pollution increasing? More than 30%? Maybe to 40%? 50%? Why are you happy to see pollution increase? Israel creates more carbon per person than China http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/CO2_per_capita_per_country.png If we look historically, China has contributed not so much to the levels of carbon in the atmosphere: Historical responsibility for climate impact (1880–2004) http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/figure12.png

and as usual, galah misses the point. PER PERSON is irrelevant.

but then again he is a muslim. clarity of thought is not encouraged.

i think everybody in the world should become one country each so then nobody will ever have to do anything about co2 emissions

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 4:47pm:

MOTR wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 10:28am: The temperature on Mars is a very indirect way of measuring solar output. Direct measures of solar radiation tell us that solar output is actually decreasing. excsue me? Mars temperature is increasing and that is because soalr output is decreasing? I just love all these graphs. Im sure in 20 years time these same graphs will still be produced and shown  as evidence of global warming while sydney harbour ices up. So no, I dont believe it. Ive read so many articles, seen so many graphs and not seen any actual evidence of any of it. Every climate prediction fails, every model is a limp disaster and whats worse the temperature is still rising apparently despite record cold spells. And no climate scientiest has apparently EVER done anythign unprofessional unethical or made a mistake, Just look at all the reviews and investigations. Not once haev they ever done anything wrong. and if you belive that you will believe anything. and apparently. do.

Longy, we can't even be sure that Mars is warming. The data we have on Mars is scarce to say the least. Dust storms have a significant impact on the Martian atmosphere and can certainly  mask any impact solar activity might be having. So yes it is possible that there might be warming on mars even during a decline in solar activity.

What amazes me, Longy, is that you'll dispute our ability to measure warming on our own planet, yet you will unquestionably accept Mars is warming. How do you reckon that was determined?

Why do you put as much importance on country that contributes 0.1% but are more easy on country who pollutes 30% of world total?

Why shall some country be held to % of 1990 level of emission but China can have no reduction of 1990 level in fact they allow to be 5 times their 1990?

You think sensible?

What right do we have to lecture China if we can't get our own act together. If the Chinese had your carbon footprint, or indeed mine, we'd all be f#%ed. What happens in China is critical, however, the rest of the world free riding would pretty much guarantee no action from the major players.

Everyone act together yes? I agree.

So tell to me, why does everyone have measure to reduce to % of 1990 levels but China and India do not?
I thought we all act together?
Shall we not has same target???

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

What amazes me, Longy, is that you'll dispute our ability to measure warming on our own planet, yet you will unquestionably accept Mars is warming. How do you reckon that was determined?

the point is that you happily ignore it. My point is that I am getting increasingly spectical of supposed global temperature measurements. There is too much happening that points to bias. The best example was Canada experienceing its 'hottest year ever' which was also the first year in 40 years that every sqm of the country was under snow. it just doesnt add up. esp not when that same story is repeated all around the world.

Hottest year ever in australi - the same year that adelaide has its coldest summer in 15 years. Same in sydney etc etc etc

Id really like to believe soem of these measuring agencies but these reports simply dont gel with what is happening in the real world.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 6:09pm:

Everyone act together yes? I agree. So tell to me, why does everyone have measure to reduce to % of 1990 levels but China and India do not? I thought we all act together? Shall we not has same target???

Why should we be able to pollute at much higher levels, is it because we got there first and have been polluting much longer.

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 6:05pm:

What right do we have to lecture China if we can't get our own act together. If the Chinese had your carbon footprint, or indeed mine, we'd all be f#%ed. What happens in China is critical, however, the rest of the world free riding would pretty much guarantee no action from the major players.

if you believ in CO2 as the problem then you attack the sources of C02 - not play silly buggers with pointless per capita crap which does not in any way affect the outcome. Whenever I hear this rubbish it reinforces that they hysterics arent really after reductions in Co2. If they were they'd attack the source. it is no more than just another reason to attack the west and try and extort more money.

If there is a problem, you attack the problem. unless it is CO2 inwhich you blame everyone else EXCEPT the source of the problem,

Exactly how are you planning to do that, Longy. Are you going to take us to war with China.

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 6:14pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 6:09pm: Everyone act together yes? I agree. So tell to me, why does everyone have measure to reduce to % of 1990 levels but China and India do not? I thought we all act together? Shall we not has same target??? Why should we be able to pollute at much higher levels, is it because we got there first and have been polluting much longer.

China pollutes 30% of the world total.
If you use your per head quota you would try to fix Gibraltar before the world's worst.

It is stupid and ignores the real problem.

Put everyone to same targets.

If you feel sorry for a country then you can not be serious about the fix.

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 6:17pm:

Exactly how are you planning to do that, Longy. Are you going to take us to war with China.

I'll start by at least understanding that China emits the most CO2 and not pretending oterhwise like you do.

If you believe that CO2 is the problem then you might also understand that the biospehere gives not one crap over if it is australian Co2 or Chinese Co2 or Indian CO2

You are playing politics and not science.

A big problem is not solved by per-capita poltically correct thinking. it is solved by actually addressing the problem.

You are taking a very extreme and unworkable position, Avram. The rest of the world accepts that for this to work developing countries require some sort of concession. And BTW, we are well on the way to a legally enforceable global agreement. It's not happening fast enough but it is happening.

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 6:28pm:

You are taking a very extreme and unworkable position, Avram. The rest of the world accepts that for this to work developing countries require some sort of concession. And BTW, we are well on the way to a legally enforceable global agreement. It's not happening fast enough but it is happening.

As you know Israel is classed developing so I do not say this from selfish view but ignoring how bad is China's total is stupid.

By the way have you read some of india's comment?
"carbon emissions are not a priority"

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 6:27pm:

MOTR wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 6:17pm: Exactly how are you planning to do that, Longy. Are you going to take us to war with China. I'll start by at least understanding that China emits the most CO2 and not pretending oterhwise like you do. If you believe that CO2 is the problem then you might also understand that the biospehere gives not one crap over if it is australian Co2 or Chinese Co2 or Indian CO2 You are playing politics and not science. A big problem is not solved by per-capita poltically correct thinking. it is solved by actually addressing the problem.

How are going to get China to accept that they are 2nd class citizens and still get some sort of collective action from them. You know it's impossible so why would you even pretend it's a rational way forward.

So china is allowed to keep increasing emissions by huge numbers and everyone else must reduce.

Stupid.

Inevitably China will have to reduce its emissions, that does not mean there isn't some scope for a transfer of emissions from developed to developing counties in the short run.

What are you proposing and how would you get developing countries to agree with you?

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 6:28pm:

You are taking a very extreme and unworkable position, Avram. The rest of the world accepts that for this to work developing countries require some sort of concession. And BTW, we are well on the way to a legally enforceable global agreement. It's not happening fast enough but it is happening.

Really? It is the worlds consensus tha there is NO consensus of the sort. Did you not see copenhagen - perhaps the most expensive, bext advertised complete fiasco in all of historY? not a single agreement from that other than a few motherhood statements.

there is NO consensus that the third world should get consensus. That comes from the mouth of a few non-representative wankers.

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 6:40pm:

Inevitably China will have to reduce its emissions, that does not mean there isn't some scope for a transfer of emissions from developed to developing counties in the short run. What are you proposing and how would you get developing countries to agree with you?

'inevitably' and all those other nice sounding words.  pure drivel. China will do what it is forced to do and nothing else - just like most countries. and while you are rabbitting on, China is increasing its emissions by a stellar amount and you make excuses.

It is just as well that Co2 is not the problem because if we follow the climate hysterics path to reducing emissions nothing will ever happen.

Again I ask, Longy, how are we going to get countries to comply? I believe we should be entitled to put a tax on imported emissions.

Let me show you your argument -


Emissions per capita

Metric Tons per capita

Dutch Antilles - 31
Luxembourg - 21
Falkland Islands - 19

China - 5


Total Emissions (in thousands metric tons)

Dutch Antilles - 6,219 (0.02%)
Luxembourg - 10,502 (0.03%)
Falkland Islands - 59 (0.0001%)

China - 8,240,958 (29.7%)


Now you would put the Falkland Islands as a bigger problem for the world pollution problem in your theory?

You realize China's emissions is -

8,240,958,000,000

More than nearly all the rest of the world add together.

And this is not a problem and you think they can increase???

Crazy.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 7:07pm:

You realize China's emissions is - 8,240,958,000,000 More than nearly all the rest of the world add together. And this is not a problem and you think they can increase??? Crazy.

How are you going to stop them, Avram? The best outcome is to work towards a medium term reduction in emissions.

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 7:14pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 7:07pm: You realize China's emissions is - 8,240,958,000,000 More than nearly all the rest of the world add together. And this is not a problem and you think they can increase??? Crazy. How are you going to stop them, Avram? The best outcome is to work towards a medium term reduction in emissions.

You get tough with them and use force if necessary.
That is my view.

So by your argument, no one should act on carbon emissions because no one should lead because someone else will follow instead of leading.

Even though Australia is in the frontline of climate catastrophe, that inaction could slash up to 20% of the next generations wealth.

That inaction will result in war and strife. That without acting, we will enact methane global warming, a gas over 20 times as lethal as carbon as far as heat trapping.

That by inaction, Australia deals itself out of  global negotiations to push for stronger action.

And last but not least, those that move first will be the ones who benefit from the financial advantages.



To use China as an excuse to not act is a form of racism.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

MOTR wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 7:14pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 7:07pm: You realize China's emissions is - 8,240,958,000,000 More than nearly all the rest of the world add together. And this is not a problem and you think they can increase??? Crazy. How are you going to stop them, Avram? The best outcome is to work towards a medium term reduction in emissions. You get tough with them and use force if necessary. That is my view.

Idiocy. Unless you are talking economic sanctions.

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 7:26pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 7:15pm: MOTR wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 7:14pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 7:07pm: You realize China's emissions is - 8,240,958,000,000 More than nearly all the rest of the world add together. And this is not a problem and you think they can increase??? Crazy. How are you going to stop them, Avram? The best outcome is to work towards a medium term reduction in emissions. You get tough with them and use force if necessary. That is my view. Idiocy. Unless you are talking economic sanctions.

The debt the USA owes China ... China just has to cut loose the USA and the western world would financially crumble.

That is why some sort of global agreement will need to be reached. I believe countries who price their carbon should have the right to apply a similar tax on imported goods, without being deemed to have contravened free trade agreements.

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 7:47pm:

That is why some sort of global agreement will need to be reached. I believe countries who price their carbon should have the right to apply a similar tax on imported goods, without being deemed to have contravened free trade agreements.

Please read china's response to the emissions tax on airlines by the eu.

Over the last 150 years, China has emitted about a quarter the carbon that the US has.

It will be decades before China overtakes the US in overall historical carbon emissions - and China has 3X population of US.

Why should the US get away with emitting more overall carbon pollution than China in the last 150 years, with only 1/3 the population?

Total Emissions

http://climatide.wgbh.org/files/2010/12/total-emissions.gif


Per Capita Emissions

http://climatide.wgbh.org/files/2010/12/per-capita.gif

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 7:51pm:

MOTR wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 7:47pm: That is why some sort of global agreement will need to be reached. I believe countries who price their carbon should have the right to apply a similar tax on imported goods, without being deemed to have contravened free trade agreements. Please read china's response to the emissions tax on airlines by the eu.

China has seven, repeat, seven different small carbon pricing schemes operating currently so China can select the most suitable.


What China knowns is if China doesn't act on pricing carbon, civil unrest will result.

Your continual choice of pointing the finger at China comes a cross as a form of racism. Is It?

nuke china

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 7:47pm:

That is why some sort of global agreement will need to be reached. I believe countries who price their carbon should have the right to apply a similar tax on imported goods, without being deemed to have contravened free trade agreements.

This is not a bad idea at all, it does require the world to agree on it so it is not seen as protection.

____ wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 2:21pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 1:48pm: But you understand it make no difference at all what Australia do. You are 0.13%!!!! China is 30%!!!! Prove that Australia acting on her carbon footprint makes no difference. i.e Australian Research and Development produces a cheap,green and clean power source, financed via a carbon price, that is exported to the world.

LOL

Got any examples?

With the cost of manufaturing in this country, i think you are dreaming.

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 9:50am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20th, 2012 at 9:39am: The earth has warm and cooled for many millions of years. Long long time before even humans were here. Yes. No one disputes that. Do you have a point. Let me guess A, B and C have caused warming in the past therefore we can exclude D as the current cause of warming. That my friend is an illogical argument. While you are studying in Australia I'd suggest a critical reasoning course.

AGW Disciples' Argument: we know that D is the current cause of warming, therefore, we should completely ignore A, B, and C.  Let's just focus all of our attention on D and forget A, B and C ever happened.

Sceptics' Argument: A, B and C have caused warming in the past therefore we can not exclude them as possible causes of current warming.  However, D could also be a contributor and it should not be ignored.  Even though the current evidence supporting D is dubious, we'll keep an open mind on the subject.

Slight correction

AGW  Argument: we know that D is the current cause of warming, therefore, we should completely ignore A, B, and C.  Let's just focus all of our attention on D and forget A, B and C ever happened.

Sceptics' Deniers Argument: A, B and C have caused warming in the past therefore we can not exclude them as possible causes of current warming.  However, D could also be a contributor and it should not be ignored.  Even though the current evidence supporting D is dubious, we'll keep an open mind on the subject.
However, we do not know what A, B and C are, but we dont like D.

Sydney has experienced the driest May (so far) since 1856.

Coincidence ?  I think not.

MOTR wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 7:47pm:

That is why some sort of global agreement will need to be reached. I believe countries who price their carbon should have the right to apply a similar tax on imported goods, without being deemed to have contravened free trade agreements.

I doubt a global agreement will ever be reached, so we should not "wait" for something that wont happen, however, I agree with your second part. They can apply a carbon price to imports via an import tax which is outside FTA's

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 11:14am:

However, we do not know what A, B and C are, but we dont like D.

First, incorrect.

Second, if you don't know what A, B and C are , you really are out of your depth.

No wonder AGW disciples are laughed at so much.    ::)

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 11:16am:

Sydney has experienced the driest May (so far) since 1856. Coincidence ?  I think not.

"It is now the driest May since records began in 1859."

LOL    153 years   ;D

153 years, in terms of global climate change, is absolutely nothing. 

Keep up the fear mongering though, if it makes you happy.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 11:16am:

Sydney has experienced the driest May (so far) since 1856. Coincidence ?  I think not.

LOL

All the evidence you need right there. ;D

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 11:21am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 11:14am: However, we do not know what A, B and C are, but we dont like D. First, incorrect. Second, if you don't know what A, B and C are , you really are out of your depth. No wonder AGW disciples are laughed at so much.    ::)

Mr Meat, I believe you were the one who ran away like a school girl from another GW thread when asked to produce an example of A, let alone B or C.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 11:25am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 11:16am: Sydney has experienced the driest May (so far) since 1856. Coincidence ?  I think not. "It is now the driest May since records began in 1859." LOL    153 years   ;D 153 years, in terms of global climate change, is absolutely nothing.

global climate change in the past caused mass extinctions.  global climate change now (as we hear records broken year after year) will cause....

you fill in the blanks.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 11:44am:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 11:21am: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 11:14am: However, we do not know what A, B and C are, but we dont like D. First, incorrect. Second, if you don't know what A, B and C are , you really are out of your depth. No wonder AGW disciples are laughed at so much.    ::) Mr Meat, I believe you were the one who ran away like a school girl from another GW thread when asked to produce an example of A, let alone B or C.

It's hard to believe that people as ignorant as you actually exist.

However, seeing as you're an AGW disciple ... I suppose it's understandable.

So, now that you've admitted that you have no idea what A, B or C could possibly be, I suppose I will have to spoon feed you like a baby:

For example ...

Variations in the Earth's orbital characteristics.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations (non-anthropogenic).
Volcanic eruptions.
Variations in solar output.

You've honestly never heard of any of these?   ::)

As I stated before:

AGW "Argument": we know that D is the current cause of warming, therefore, we should completely ignore A, B, and C.  Let's just focus all of our attention on D and forget A, B and C ever happened.

Sceptics' Argument: A, B and C have caused warming in the past therefore we can not exclude them as possible causes of current warming.  However, D could also be a contributor and it should not be ignored.  Even though the current evidence supporting D is dubious, we'll keep an open mind on the subject.


AGW Disciples: AGW is destroying the planet and that's the end of the argument.  I don't care about any other hypothesis and I won't look at any new evidence.

Sceptics: currently, I don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis (as the evidence is less than reliable), however, I'm willing to keep an open-mind on the subject and will analyse each new piece of evidence that is presented.  In the future I may very well support the AGW hypothesis, that is, if any credible and reliable evidence is eventually presented.

Here, this may help you too:

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/climatefactors.jpg

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 12:39pm:

Variations in the Earth's orbital characteristics.

Significant in the long term (cause of glaciations). Insignificant on a 200 year time span.

Quote:

Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations (non-anthropogenic).

Pretty well accounted for. When you talk about anthropogenic fluxes compared to natural, just make sure you balance them (eg Atmosphere -> Ocean versus  Ocean -> Atmosphere

It's cheating to take anthropogenic CO2 fluxes as a proportion of positive fluxes (red text) only. (You wouldn't stoop that low, would you?)

Quote:

Volcanic eruptions.

Large Stratospheric volcanoes cause small blips of the order of 1-2 year duration. Insignificant in the scheme of things.

Quote:

Variations in solar output.

One of the best measured parameters of the lot. This has slowly been decreasing very slightly over the last 50 year. (apart from slight variations at solar maxima of the order of  1 W/m2 between solar minimum and maximum - that's around 0.1% variation)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

Did you have a E,F or G?

muso wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 1:24pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 12:39pm: Variations in the Earth's orbital characteristics. Significant in the long term (cause of glaciations). Insignificant on a 200 year time span. Quote: Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations (non-anthropogenic). Pretty well accounted for. When you talk about anthropogenic fluxes compared to natural, just make sure you balance them (eg Atmosphere -> Ocean versus  Ocean -> Atmosphere It's cheating to take anthropogenic CO2 fluxes as a proportion of positive fluxes (red text) only. (You wouldn't stoop that low, would you?) [quote] Volcanic eruptions.

Large Stratospheric volcanoes cause small blips of the order of 1-2 year duration. Insignificant in the scheme of things.

Quote:

Variations in solar output.

One of the best measured parameters of the lot. This has slowly been decreasing very slightly over the last 50 year. (apart from slight variations at solar maxima of the order of  1 W/m2 between solar minimum and maximum - that's around 0.1% variation)
[/quote]


Thank you for your subjective opinions.

It's good to see that some AGW disciples can at least acknowledge the existence of alternative hypotheses.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 11:46am:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 11:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 11:16am: Sydney has experienced the driest May (so far) since 1856. Coincidence ?  I think not. "It is now the driest May since records began in 1859." LOL    153 years   ;D 153 years, in terms of global climate change, is absolutely nothing.  global climate change in the past caused mass extinctions.  global climate change now (as we hear records broken year after year) will cause.... you fill in the blanks.

OK ...

"global climate change now (as we hear records broken year after year) will cause.... AGW disciples to confuse short term, local weather patterns with global climate change."
 
"global climate change now (as we hear records broken year after year) will cause.... a rash of fear-mongering and closed-mindedness."

"global climate change now (as we hear records broken year after year) will cause.... AGW disciples to ignore all other hypotheses."

"global climate change now (as we hear records broken year after year) will cause.... AGW disciples to believe beyond all reasonable doubt that man has caused this problem and man can fix it."

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 2:36pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 11:46am: Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 11:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 11:16am: Sydney has experienced the driest May (so far) since 1856. Coincidence ?  I think not. "It is now the driest May since records began in 1859." LOL    153 years   ;D 153 years, in terms of global climate change, is absolutely nothing.  global climate change in the past caused mass extinctions.  global climate change now (as we hear records broken year after year) will cause.... you fill in the blanks. OK ... "global climate change now (as we hear records broken year after year) will cause.... AGW disciples to confuse short term, local weather patterns with global climate change."   "global climate change now (as we hear records broken year after year) will cause.... a rash of fear-mongering and closed-mindedness." "global climate change now (as we hear records broken year after year) will cause.... AGW disciples to ignore all other hypotheses." "global climate change now (as we hear records broken year after year) will cause.... AGW disciples to believe beyond all reasonable doubt that man has caused this problem and man can fix it."

So while global warming caused extinctions in the past, somehow this one wont ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 2:42pm:

So while global warming caused extinctions in the past, somehow this one wont ?

It might, it might not.

I'm keeping an open mind on the subject.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 2:57pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 2:42pm: So while global warming caused extinctions in the past, somehow this one wont ? It might, it might not. I'm keeping an open mind on the subject.

you have actually closed your mind.

Closed up and turned the lights off.

;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 2:59pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 2:57pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 2:42pm: So while global warming caused extinctions in the past, somehow this one wont ? It might, it might not. I'm keeping an open mind on the subject. you have actually closed your mind. Closed up and turned the lights off. ;D

Please explain.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Quote:

Record Temperatures in the Pipeline.

People really should be arrested for peddling this crap.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:01pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 2:59pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 2:57pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 2:42pm: So while global warming caused extinctions in the past, somehow this one wont ? It might, it might not. I'm keeping an open mind on the subject. you have actually closed your mind. Closed up and turned the lights off. ;D Please explain. How did you come to that conclusion?

By reading  your posts. You've made up your mind to ignore the logical, and embrace the radical.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 2:59pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 2:57pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 2:42pm: So while global warming caused extinctions in the past, somehow this one wont ? It might, it might not. I'm keeping an open mind on the subject. you have actually closed your mind. Closed up and turned the lights off. ;D

You don't understand what open-mindedness is, do you?   ::)

From a previous post of mine:

" ... currently, I don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis (as the evidence is less than reliable), however, I'm willing to keep an open-mind on the subject and will analyse each new piece of evidence that is presented.  In the future I may very well support the AGW hypothesis, that is, if any credible and reliable evidence is eventually presented."

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:04pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:01pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 2:59pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 2:57pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 2:42pm: So while global warming caused extinctions in the past, somehow this one wont ? It might, it might not. I'm keeping an open mind on the subject. you have actually closed your mind. Closed up and turned the lights off. ;D Please explain. How did you come to that conclusion? By reading  your posts. You've made up your mind to ignore the logical, and embrace the radical.

Incorrect. 

Explain which part of this you don't understand:

" ... currently, I don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis (as the evidence is less than reliable), however, I'm willing to keep an open-mind on the subject and will analyse each new piece of evidence that is presented.  In the future I may very well support the AGW hypothesis, that is, if any credible and reliable evidence is eventually presented."

You can't honestly read that and say I don't have an open mind on the subject.   ::)

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:07pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:04pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:01pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 2:59pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 2:57pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 2:42pm: So while global warming caused extinctions in the past, somehow this one wont ? It might, it might not. I'm keeping an open mind on the subject. you have actually closed your mind. Closed up and turned the lights off. ;D Please explain. How did you come to that conclusion? By reading  your posts. You've made up your mind to ignore the logical, and embrace the radical. Incorrect.  Explain which part of this you don't understand: " ... currently, I don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis (as the evidence is less than reliable), however, I'm willing to keep an open-mind on the subject and will analyse each new piece of evidence that is presented.  In the future I may very well support the AGW hypothesis, that is, if any credible and reliable evidence is eventually presented." You can't honestly read that and say I don't have an open mind on the subject.   ::)

Maybe where you get your evidence from is the problem.  In peer reviewed journals from scientists, weve had 10 years of almost unanimous reinforcement of AGW. 
To ignore that is to close your mind to the logical.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:04pm:

By reading  your posts. You've made up your mind to ignore the logical, and embrace the radical.

Which words don't you understand?

"I'm keeping an open mind on the subject."  (from my previous post)

:-/

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:10pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:04pm: By reading  your posts. You've made up your mind to ignore the logical, and embrace the radical. Which words don't you understand? "I'm keeping an open mind on the subject."  (from my previous post) :-/

Saying something, while doing the opposite does not compute

Your actions speak louder than words.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:09pm:

Maybe where you get your evidence from is the problem.  In peer reviewed journals from scientists, weve had 10 years of almost unanimous reinforcement of AGW.  To ignore that is to close your mind to the logical.

I'm starting to think you have a reading problem.

My previous posts clearly demonstrate that I am not ignoring the evidence in support of AGW:

"A, B and C have caused warming in the past therefore we can not exclude them as possible causes of current warming.  However, D could also be a contributor and it should not be ignored.  Even though the current evidence supporting D is dubious, we'll keep an open mind on the subject."

" ... currently, I don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis (as the evidence is less than reliable), however, I'm willing to keep an open-mind on the subject and will analyse each new piece of evidence that is presented.  In the future I may very well support the AGW hypothesis, that is, if any credible and reliable evidence is eventually presented."

"It might, it might not.

I'm keeping an open mind on the subject."

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:10pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:04pm: By reading  your posts. You've made up your mind to ignore the logical, and embrace the radical. Which words don't you understand? "I'm keeping an open mind on the subject."  (from my previous post) :-/ Saying something, while doing the opposite does not compute Your actions speak louder than words.

What am I "doing" that is the opposite?

Where have you seen me carry out these "actions"?

Please enlighten me.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:17pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:12pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:10pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:04pm: By reading  your posts. You've made up your mind to ignore the logical, and embrace the radical. Which words don't you understand? "I'm keeping an open mind on the subject."  (from my previous post) :-/ Saying something, while doing the opposite does not compute Your actions speak louder than words. What am I "doing" that is the opposite? Please enlighten me.

After reading 10 years of almost unanimous scientific peer-reviewed journals tracking mans contribution to AGW,  how can you suddenly come to the exact opposite conclusion, and then claim to be open minded.

That, is a pure definition of closed mindedness.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:20pm:

...  how can you suddenly come to the exact opposite conclusion ...

Excuse me?  What conclusion?

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:21pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:20pm: ...  how can you suddenly come to the exact opposite conclusion ... Excuse me?  What conclusion?

Only you would know what your mind has contrived up.  But it does appear to excuse man from being responsible.

If you are just going to ask dumb questions, you'll join my ignore list.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:25pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:21pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:20pm: ...  how can you suddenly come to the exact opposite conclusion ... Excuse me?  What conclusion? Only you would know what your mind has contrived up.  But it does appear to excuse man from being responsible. If you are just going to ask dumb questions, you'll join my ignore list.

No dumb questions, just serious ones.

1. What conclusion?

2. What am I "doing" that is the opposite (what "actions")?

These are perfectly legitimate questions.  How about an answer, or two?

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:17pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:12pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:10pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:04pm: By reading  your posts. You've made up your mind to ignore the logical, and embrace the radical. Which words don't you understand? "I'm keeping an open mind on the subject."  (from my previous post) :-/ Saying something, while doing the opposite does not compute Your actions speak louder than words. What am I "doing" that is the opposite? Where have you seen me carry out these "actions"? Please enlighten me.

Why can't you answer these questions?

Don't make accusations and then run away.  Please answer the questions.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:21pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:20pm: ...  how can you suddenly come to the exact opposite conclusion ... Excuse me?  What conclusion?

Too hard?  Come on, answer the question.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:37pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:21pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:20pm: ...  how can you suddenly come to the exact opposite conclusion ... Excuse me?  What conclusion? Too hard?  Come on, answer the question.

Are you asking me to guess you position on AGW ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:48pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:37pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:21pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:20pm: ...  how can you suddenly come to the exact opposite conclusion ... Excuse me?  What conclusion? Too hard?  Come on, answer the question. Are you asking me to guess you position on AGW ?

You said "how can you suddenly come to the exact opposite conclusion?"

What conclusion?

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 3:48pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:37pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:21pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:20pm: ...  how can you suddenly come to the exact opposite conclusion ... Excuse me?  What conclusion? Too hard?  Come on, answer the question. Are you asking me to guess you position on AGW ?

No need to guess, I've said it many times:

" currently, I don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis (as the evidence is less than reliable), however, I'm willing to keep an open-mind on the subject and will analyse each new piece of evidence that is presented.  In the future I may very well support the AGW hypothesis, that is, if any credible and reliable evidence is eventually presented."

Did you miss that?

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:48pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:37pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:21pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 3:20pm: ...  how can you suddenly come to the exact opposite conclusion ... Excuse me?  What conclusion? Too hard?  Come on, answer the question. Are you asking me to guess you position on AGW ? No need to guess, I've said it many times: " currently, I don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis (as the evidence is less than reliable), however, I'm willing to keep an open-mind on the subject and will analyse each new piece of evidence that is presented.  In the future I may very well support the AGW hypothesis, that is, if any credible and reliable evidence is eventually presented." Did you miss that?

... and so to repeat myself, your position as stated, can only come from a closed mind...


After reading 10 years of almost unanimous scientific peer-reviewed journals tracking mans contribution to AGW,  how can you suddenly come to the exact opposite conclusion, and then claim to be open minded.

That, is a pure definition of closed mindedness.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 4:10pm:

After reading 10 years of almost unanimous scientific peer-reviewed journals tracking mans contribution to AGW,  how can you suddenly come to the exact opposite conclusion, and then claim to be open minded.

What conclusion?  (why do you refuse to answer this question?)

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 4:10pm:

... and so to repeat myself, your position as stated, can only come from a closed mind...

LOL       ;D   That's one of the funniest things I've ever read on this forum.

You obviously have no idea what the term closed mind means.

This is not from a closed mind:

" currently, I don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis (as the evidence is less than reliable), however, I'm willing to keep an open-mind on the subject and will analyse each new piece of evidence that is presented.  In the future I may very well support the AGW hypothesis, that is, if any credible and reliable evidence is eventually presented."

Why is it not from a closed mind?  These are the key words/phrases to look out for:

- currently
- however
- willing to keep an open mind (that was a dead giveaway)
- in the future I may

::)

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 20^th, 2012 at 9:39am:

The earth has warm and cooled for many millions of years. Long long time before even humans were here.

....jewish propaganda , lol!

What's with the flag man?  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 4:45pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 4:10pm: ... and so to repeat myself, your position as stated, can only come from a closed mind... LOL       ;D   That's one of the funniest things I've ever read on this forum. You obviously have no idea what the term closed mind means. This is not from a closed mind: " currently, I don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis (as the evidence is less than reliable), however, I'm willing to keep an open-mind on the subject and will analyse each new piece of evidence that is presented.  In the future I may very well support the AGW hypothesis, that is, if any credible and reliable evidence is eventually presented." Why is it not from a closed mind?  These are the key words/phrases to look out for: - currently - however - willing to keep an open mind (that was a dead giveaway) - in the future I may ::)

Uncle Meat is still trying to put his hand down the pants of the unborn.

  ::)

Uncle Meat wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 4:30pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21st, 2012 at 4:10pm: After reading 10 years of almost unanimous scientific peer-reviewed journals tracking mans contribution to AGW,  how can you suddenly come to the exact opposite conclusion, and then claim to be open minded. What conclusion?  (why do you refuse to answer this question?)

10 years of overwhelming peer-reviewed scientific research (following many years previously) comes to the conclusion that man is primarily responsible for the current warming.  AGW = man made climate change.

You ignore all that, and say man isnt primarily responsible.  That is closed minded, and can only come from a mind which has dismissed AGW 10 years ago, and will not take in any data.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 4:50pm:

::)Uncle Meat is still trying to put his hand down the pants of the unborn.   ::)

Nope, that's your thing.

I hope you enjoy your time in a cell with Bubba.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 4:55pm:

10 years of overwhelming peer-reviewed scientific research (following many years previously) comes to the conclusion ...

... that AGW is a likely hypothesis.  Yes, everybody knows that.


Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 4:55pm:

You ignore all that ...

I do no such thing.  Stop telling lies you naughty little boy.

" ... will analyse each new piece of evidence that is presented.  In the future I may very well support the AGW hypothesis"

" A, B and C have caused warming in the past therefore we can not exclude them as possible causes of current warming.  However, D could also be a contributor and it should not be ignored." (D represents AGW, in case you haven't been keeping up).

Can't you read?  Stop telling your little lies and actually read my posts before you make a bigger fool of yourself.


Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 4:55pm:

... has dismissed AGW 10 years ago, and will not take in any data.

You haven't read any of my posts, have you?

::)

People should be deported for this lying crap.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 4:55pm:

You ignore all that, and say man isnt primarily responsible.  That is closed minded, and can only come from a mind which has dismissed AGW 10 years ago, and will not take in any data.

What part of this don't you understand?

" ... I'm willing to keep an open-mind on the subject and will analyse each new piece of evidence that is presented.  In the future I may very well support the AGW hypothesis ... "

Seriously?    ::)

corporate_whitey wrote on May 21^st, 2012 at 5:10pm:

People should be deported for this lying crap.

Aboriginals should be killed for breathing whiteys air!

AS Harry Seccombe said in the Goon show, "Gee its hot, must be the heat!" ;D

Uncle Meat, there is overwhelming evidence for D and nothing that substantiates A, B or C. That is my understanding of where the science is at. Since the consequences of D range from  very dangerous to catastrophic we need to act on the assumption D is correct. You might be able to argue semantically that you have an open mind but that doesn't mean you are behaving rationally.

Besides against D, can you articulate your understanding of what is driving the shift in our climate. Muso had a very good post where he outlined the problems with A, B and C, can you put any of them back in the frame. All you seem to want to do is play semantics, isn't it about time you tested some of your premises.

Uncle Meat,  If experts in the field tell you the sky is blue, do you still keep an open mind that it might be green ?

Thats what you sound like.

MOTR wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 7:17am:

Since the consequences of D range from  very dangerous to catastrophic ...

Mere speculation.

Stop the fear mongering.

MOTR wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 7:17am:

... isn't it about time you tested some of your premises.

Actually, that's what the AGW disciples need to do.

Refusing to accept any other possibility other than "the globe is warming at dangerous levels and man is fully responsible for it" is not scientific.  It's dogmatism and fear mongering.

Climate change is a scientific issue; the AGW disciples seem to have forgotten this fact.

I'll continue to keep an open mind on the subject.

If AGW is real.

And globally emissions are going up, up and up.

Isn’t it time for OZ to deal with the inevitable upcoming effects of AGW and stop carrying on like the carbon tax will be some great elixir? Some magic tax that will “save our grand kids”?

Shouldn’t we start moving cities/towns/infrastructure away from the rising oceans?

Shouldn’t we start building massive water control and catchment infrastructure?

Shouldn’t we start to decrease sales of the fossil fuels that will surely help decimate large areas of our country and the world?

Shouldn’t we start to ease population growth so we can maintain a sustainable population?
:-/

Uncle Meat wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 10:58am:

MOTR wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 7:17am: Since the consequences of D range from  very dangerous to catastrophic ... Mere speculation. Stop the fear mongering.

"Mere speculation.", lol!!!  :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 6:11pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 10:58am: MOTR wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 7:17am: Since the consequences of D range from  very dangerous to catastrophic ... Mere speculation. Stop the fear mongering. "Mere speculation.", lol!!!  :D :D

Yes, mere speculation.

Anyone suggesting otherwise is a fool.

You don't know much about science, do you?   ::)

Uncle Meat wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 6:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 6:11pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 10:58am: MOTR wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 7:17am: Since the consequences of D range from  very dangerous to catastrophic ... Mere speculation. Stop the fear mongering. "Mere speculation.", lol!!!  :D :D Yes, mere speculation. Anyone suggesting otherwise is a fool. You don't know much about science, do you?   ::)

I know that "mere speculation" does not feature in it's nomenclature!

  :D

Cum get sum fag!!  ::) ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 6:23pm:

I know that "mere speculation" does not feature in it's nomenclature!

Ah well, that proves my point.

You really should keep out of discussions that you know nothing about. 

Uncle Meat wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 6:31pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 6:23pm: I know that "mere speculation" does not feature in it's nomenclature! Ah well, that proves my point. You really should keep out of discussions that you know nothing about.

Lol!!

  ::)

Uncle Meat thinks the term 'mere speculation' is in the scientific nomenclature!

Just so lol!!!  ;D ;D

(Just sooooooooooooooooooo lololololol!!!   ::)  :D :D :D 8-) )

Uncle Meat wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 6:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 6:11pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 10:58am: MOTR wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 7:17am: Since the consequences of D range from  very dangerous to catastrophic ... Mere speculation. Stop the fear mongering. "Mere speculation.", lol!!!  :D :D Yes, mere speculation. Anyone suggesting otherwise is a fool. You don't know much about science, do you?   ::)

Anther word game from the meat.

If temperatures were to rise by 2 degrees would that disturb you. Where on the meat scale is it not foolish to worry about this?

Why will you allow china to increase?
You seem only worried about it when it is a western country?
Reverse racism?

FriYAY wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 11:52am:

If AGW is real. And globally emissions are going up, up and up. Isn’t it time for OZ to deal with the inevitable upcoming effects of AGW and stop carrying on like the carbon tax will be some great elixir? Some magic tax that will “save our grand kids”? Shouldn’t we start moving cities/towns/infrastructure away from the rising oceans? Shouldn’t we start building massive water control and catchment infrastructure? Shouldn’t we start to decrease sales of the fossil fuels that will surely help decimate large areas of our country and the world? Shouldn’t we start to ease population growth so we can maintain a sustainable population? :-/

Yes to most of the above. But given that even a relatively simple measure like implementing a tax has met with so much opposition, good luck to getting the rest of it done.

Well done Australia. You have finally taxed air.

MOTR wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 8:18pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 6:18pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 6:11pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 10:58am: MOTR wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 7:17am: Since the consequences of D range from  very dangerous to catastrophic ... Mere speculation. Stop the fear mongering. "Mere speculation.", lol!!!  :D :D Yes, mere speculation. Anyone suggesting otherwise is a fool. You don't know much about science, do you?   ::) Anther word game from the meat. If temperatures were to rise by 2 degrees would that disturb you. Where on the meat scale is it not foolish to worry about this?

It's speculation.

What part of that word don't you understand?

Seriously   ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 6:54pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 6:31pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 6:23pm: I know that "mere speculation" does not feature in it's nomenclature! Ah well, that proves my point. You really should keep out of discussions that you know nothing about.  Lol!!   ::) Uncle Meat thinks the term 'mere speculation' is in the scientific nomenclature! Just so lol!!!  ;D ;D (Just sooooooooooooooooooo lololololol!!!   ::)  :D :D :D 8-) )

Your posts in other threads have clearly demonstrated your lack of knowledge on ... well ... just about everything.

Now, you continue to show how ignorant you are when it comes to science.

Tell me, is there anything that you do know something about?

MOTR wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 8:18pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 6:18pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 6:11pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 10:58am: MOTR wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 7:17am: Since the consequences of D range from  very dangerous to catastrophic ... Mere speculation. Stop the fear mongering. "Mere speculation.", lol!!!  :D :D Yes, mere speculation. Anyone suggesting otherwise is a fool. You don't know much about science, do you?   ::) Anther word game from the meat. If temperatures were to rise by 2 degrees would that disturb you. Where on the meat scale is it not foolish to worry about this?

No word games: just facts (I know you AGW disciples don't really like facts).

What you are talking about is speculation.

Or, are you seriously suggesting that you can accurately predict the future?  LOL    ;D  Surely you're not that stupid.

Better hop back in that DeLorean of yours   ;)

Meat, you've lost me entirely. If you want to call good science speculation, go ahead. You obviously don't have the intellect or the stomach to deal with this issue.

On every point of difference you have deliberately diverted the debate to a game of semantics. It is clear you have a very superficial understanding of the science and you are comfortable in your ignorance.

When you are willing to discuss the science, get back to me. To paraphrase Neil Bohr, if Global Warming has not shaken you up yet, you probably haven’t understood it.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 9:08pm:

Well done Australia. You have finally taxed air.

Quote:

On the occasion of the announcement of a carbon price by the Australian Government, EU Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard said: ''Congratulations to Australia for its commitment to pricing carbon emissions and introduce a domestic cap-and-trade scheme from July 2015. Our experience in Europe is that our emissions trading system has led our most forward thinking industries to some very creative and innovative ways of working, that help reduce emissions and cut costs. This creativity is also developing the skills and experience in the industries of the future. We look forward to Australia embarking on the same route and make a carbon market the core of its policy response to the climate challenge''.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 8:41pm:

Why will you allow china to increase? You seem only worried about it when it is a western country? Reverse racism?

I've been to China several times. I've seen the affluent suburbs of Shanghai but I've also seen the frugal existence of the vast majority. Individually, the Chinese have very small carbon footprints. However, China has become the factory of the world and is now emitting more greenhouse gases than any other country. Most of the greenhouse gases coming from China are a function of our GHG intensive lifestyles, not the lifestyles of the Chinese.

We are asking the Chinese people to cap their level of emissions at a point well below that of the developed world. Just as we have seen our economic development as an inalienable right, so too do the Chinese. We are asking the Chinese to make a much larger sacrifice than us and they are in a powerful enough position to say no.

I have no problem with a global agreement that gives some concessions to developing countries. It's actually not a controversial position, Avram, it has been at the heart of all global agreements to date and it is a position wholeheartedly  supported by Israel. There is nothing racist about the position I have taken.

MOTR wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 5:01am:

Meat, you've lost me entirely. If you want to call good science speculation, go ahead. You obviously don't have the intellect or the stomach to deal with this issue. On every point of difference you have deliberately diverted the debate to a game of semantics. It is clear you have a very superficial understanding of the science and you are comfortable in your ignorance. When you are willing to discuss the science, get back to me. To paraphrase Neil Bohr, if Global Warming has not shaken you up yet, you probably haven’t understood it.

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.

MOTR wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 5:01am:

Meat, you've lost me entirely.

That's because you don't fully understand how science works.

You'll get there, eventually (hopefully).   :-/

You are a delayer, Uncle Meat. If you are waiting for absolute certainty you are a fool.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 7:22am:

MOTR wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 5:01am: Meat, you've lost me entirely. That's because you don't fully understand how science works. You'll get there, eventually (hopefully).   :-/

And yet again you pretend you know something about the science yet refuse to discuss it. Here's a specific question for you. Do you accept that AGW is the most likely driver of our recent warming?

MOTR wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 7:29am:

You are a delayer, Uncle Meat. If you are waiting for absolute certainty you are a fool.

Another display of your ignorance.

"Absolute certainty" is not scientific.

My mind is open to all possibilities.

Again the word games. You accept AGW is a possibility that can never be proven absolutely. That means you also accept there must be a point where the weight of evidence demands action. You are avoiding any discussion about where that point may be.

Is it because you don't have enough knowledge to have that particular debate or are you too scared to face such possibilities.

Uncle Meat is profiling exactly to the deniers handbook.

Step 1. Question the science no matter how absurd your  question is.

Step 2. Bog down the argument with obscure scemantics.

Step 3. Never give  up.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 11:19am:

Uncle Meat is profiling exactly to the deniers handbook. Step 1. Question the science no matter how absurd your  question is. Step 2. Bog down the argument with obscure scemantics. Step 3. Never give  up.

Incorrect.  I'm a sceptic, not a denier.  My posts are demonstrable evidence of this.  Get your facts straight.

Yes, I'll always question science.  That's what science is about.

No, I have no time for games involving semantics.  That's what the AGW disciples have been continually doing.  I just deal in facts.

And, there's nothing to "give up".  I'm not fighting for anything: I'm merely questioning the validity of the AGW hypothesis.

Chillax.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 11:25am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 11:19am: Uncle Meat is profiling exactly to the deniers handbook. Step 1. Question the science no matter how absurd your  question is. Step 2. Bog down the argument with obscure scemantics. Step 3. Never give  up. Incorrect.  I'm a sceptic, not a denier.  My posts are demonstrable evidence of this.  Get your facts straight. Yes, I'll always question science.  That's what science is about. No, I have no time for games involving semantics.  That's what the AGW disciples have been continually doing.  I just deal in facts. And, there's nothing to "give up".  I'm not fighting for anything: I'm merely questioning the validity of the AGW hypothesis. Chillax.

There is no such thing as a AGW skeptic anymore, Same as there is no such thing as a spherical-earth skeptic any more.

Both concepts are so well proven, anyone "questioning" them is just a denier.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 11:37am:

There is no such thing as a AGW skeptic anymore, Same as there is no such thing as a spherical-earth skeptic any more. Both concepts are so well proven, anyone "questioning" them is just a denier.

::)

Well, you've pretty much destroyed any credibility you had with this one post.

It turns out that you are in fact the denier: there are indeed many AGW sceptics.  Just because you don't agree with them it doesn't mean they don't exist.

And, a hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. There is no such thing as scientific proof.

Climate change is a scientific issue. You seem to keep forgetting that.

MOTR wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 6:06am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 22nd, 2012 at 8:41pm: Why will you allow china to increase? You seem only worried about it when it is a western country? Reverse racism? I've been to China several times. I've seen the affluent suburbs of Shanghai but I've also seen the frugal existence of the vast majority. Individually, the Chinese have very small carbon footprints. However, China has become the factory of the world and is now emitting more greenhouse gases than any other country. Most of the greenhouse gases coming from China are a function of our GHG intensive lifestyles, not the lifestyles of the Chinese. We are asking the Chinese people to cap their level of emissions at a point well below that of the developed world. Just as we have seen our economic development as an inalienable right, so too do the Chinese. We are asking the Chinese to make a much larger sacrifice than us and they are in a powerful enough position to say no. I have no problem with a global agreement that gives some concessions to developing countries. It's actually not a controversial position, Avram, it has been at the heart of all global agreements to date and it is a position wholeheartedly  supported by Israel. There is nothing racist about the position I have taken.

The jews want you to do their hating for them!!

Uncle Meat wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 2:08pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 11:37am: There is no such thing as a AGW skeptic anymore, Same as there is no such thing as a spherical-earth skeptic any more. Both concepts are so well proven, anyone "questioning" them is just a denier. ::) Well, you've pretty much destroyed any credibility you had with this one post. It turns out that you are in fact the denier: there are indeed many AGW sceptics.  Just because you don't agree with them it doesn't mean they don't exist. And, a hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Climate change is a scientific issue. You seem to keep forgetting that.

Uncle Meat can't understand that no one denies the earth is round!  :D :D

Uncle Meat wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 2:08pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 11:37am: There is no such thing as a AGW skeptic anymore, Same as there is no such thing as a spherical-earth skeptic any more. Both concepts are so well proven, anyone "questioning" them is just a denier. ::) Well, you've pretty much destroyed any credibility you had with this one post. It turns out that you are in fact the denier: there are indeed many AGW sceptics.  Just because you don't agree with them it doesn't mean they don't exist. And, a hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Climate change is a scientific issue. You seem to keep forgetting that.

You seem to be forgetting it.

Are you or are you not skeptical of a spherical earth ?

Are you or are you not skeptical that the speed of light is a constant ?

Uncle Meat wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 7:22am:

MOTR wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 5:01am: Meat, you've lost me entirely. That's because you don't fully understand how science works. You'll get there, eventually (hopefully).   :-/

Uncle Meat simply cannot understand that there is no way possible to chew up all the internets address space with word salad!

;D ;D  :o  :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 4:55pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 2:08pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 11:37am: There is no such thing as a AGW skeptic anymore, Same as there is no such thing as a spherical-earth skeptic any more. Both concepts are so well proven, anyone "questioning" them is just a denier. ::) Well, you've pretty much destroyed any credibility you had with this one post. It turns out that you are in fact the denier: there are indeed many AGW sceptics.  Just because you don't agree with them it doesn't mean they don't exist. And, a hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Climate change is a scientific issue. You seem to keep forgetting that. Uncle Meat can't understand that no one denies the earth is round!  :D :D

Uncle meat does not deny it. He is sceptical of it.
And he's certainly not going to be fooled by those doctored photos nasa hand out. Nasa, are obviously infiltrated by left wingers who push that climate change stuff as well.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 4:55pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 2:08pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 11:37am: There is no such thing as a AGW skeptic anymore, Same as there is no such thing as a spherical-earth skeptic any more. Both concepts are so well proven, anyone "questioning" them is just a denier. ::) Well, you've pretty much destroyed any credibility you had with this one post. It turns out that you are in fact the denier: there are indeed many AGW sceptics.  Just because you don't agree with them it doesn't mean they don't exist. And, a hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Climate change is a scientific issue. You seem to keep forgetting that. Uncle Meat can't understand that no one denies the earth is round!  :D :D

Keep trying: I'm sure you'll get something right, one day.

"Strange but True: Earth Is Not RoundIt may seem round when viewed from space, but our planet is actually a bumpy spheroid ... "

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-is-not-round

Uncle Meat wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 4:59pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 4:55pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 2:08pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 11:37am: There is no such thing as a AGW skeptic anymore, Same as there is no such thing as a spherical-earth skeptic any more. Both concepts are so well proven, anyone "questioning" them is just a denier. ::) Well, you've pretty much destroyed any credibility you had with this one post. It turns out that you are in fact the denier: there are indeed many AGW sceptics.  Just because you don't agree with them it doesn't mean they don't exist. And, a hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Climate change is a scientific issue. You seem to keep forgetting that. Uncle Meat can't understand that no one denies the earth is round!  :D :D Keep trying: I'm sure you'll get something right, one day. "Strange but True: Earth Is Not RoundIt may seem round when viewed from space, but our planet is actually a bumpy spheroid ... " http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-is-not-round

Which of course, you are sceptical of.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 4:58pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 4:55pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 2:08pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 11:37am: There is no such thing as a AGW skeptic anymore, Same as there is no such thing as a spherical-earth skeptic any more. Both concepts are so well proven, anyone "questioning" them is just a denier. ::) Well, you've pretty much destroyed any credibility you had with this one post. It turns out that you are in fact the denier: there are indeed many AGW sceptics.  Just because you don't agree with them it doesn't mean they don't exist. And, a hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Climate change is a scientific issue. You seem to keep forgetting that. Uncle Meat can't understand that no one denies the earth is round!  :D :D Uncle meat does not deny it. He is sceptical of it. And he's certainly not going to be fooled by those doctored photos nasa hand out. Nasa, are obviously infiltrated by left wingers who push that climate change stuff as well.

You're having another bad day, aren't you?   ::)

"The actual shape of the Earth is actually an oblate spheroid – a sphere with a bulge around the equator."

http://www.universetoday.com/25893/is-the-earth-round/

Uncle meat says.

More NASA lies:
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/images/apollo8_earth_sm.jpg

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 5:03pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 4:59pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 4:55pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 2:08pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 11:37am: There is no such thing as a AGW skeptic anymore, Same as there is no such thing as a spherical-earth skeptic any more. Both concepts are so well proven, anyone "questioning" them is just a denier. ::) Well, you've pretty much destroyed any credibility you had with this one post. It turns out that you are in fact the denier: there are indeed many AGW sceptics.  Just because you don't agree with them it doesn't mean they don't exist. And, a hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Climate change is a scientific issue. You seem to keep forgetting that. Uncle Meat can't understand that no one denies the earth is round!  :D :D Keep trying: I'm sure you'll get something right, one day. "Strange but True: Earth Is Not RoundIt may seem round when viewed from space, but our planet is actually a bumpy spheroid ... " http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-is-not-round Which of course, you are sceptical of.

I'm sceptical of your knowledge of science.

Remember, you're the one who said that AGW has been proven.

In fact, you said "well proven".

And I told you then what I'll tell you now:

A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. There is no such thing as scientific proof.

Yes, I'm very sceptical of your scientific "knowledge".

Uncle Meat wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 5:14pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 5:03pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 4:59pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 4:55pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 2:08pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 11:37am: There is no such thing as a AGW skeptic anymore, Same as there is no such thing as a spherical-earth skeptic any more. Both concepts are so well proven, anyone "questioning" them is just a denier. ::) Well, you've pretty much destroyed any credibility you had with this one post. It turns out that you are in fact the denier: there are indeed many AGW sceptics.  Just because you don't agree with them it doesn't mean they don't exist. And, a hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Climate change is a scientific issue. You seem to keep forgetting that. Uncle Meat can't understand that no one denies the earth is round!  :D :D Keep trying: I'm sure you'll get something right, one day. "Strange but True: Earth Is Not RoundIt may seem round when viewed from space, but our planet is actually a bumpy spheroid ... " http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-is-not-round Which of course, you are sceptical of. I'm sceptical of your knowledge of science. Remember, you're the one who said that AGW has been proven. In fact, you said "well proven". And I told you then what I'll tell you now: A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Yes, I'm very sceptical of your scientific "knowledge".

Your arguing semantics again (deniers 101).  Everyone knows when they say the earth is "round" they mean "roughly spherical".  Everyone knows that when they say AGW is proven, they mean "scientific consensus, and beyond resonable doubt".

If you are going to keep up this silly word game, you might as well leave.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 5:17pm:

Your arguing semantics again (deniers 101).  Everyone knows when they say the earth is "round" they mean "roughly spherical".  Everyone knows that when they say AGW is proven, they mean "scientific consensus, and beyond resonable doubt". If you are going to keep up this silly word game, you might as well leave.

There are two things that anyone with an ounce of common sense or any basic understanding of climate science do not do:

1.  claim that a hypothesis has been well proven.

2.  try to deflect the issue by introducing a discussion on spherical-earth skeptics.

Today, you have done both.

Congratulations.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 5:27pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 5:17pm: Your arguing semantics again (deniers 101).  Everyone knows when they say the earth is "round" they mean "roughly spherical".  Everyone knows that when they say AGW is proven, they mean "scientific consensus, and beyond resonable doubt". If you are going to keep up this silly word game, you might as well leave. There are two things that anyone with an ounce of common sense or any basic understanding of climate science do not do: 1.  claim that a hypothesis has been well proven. 2.  try to deflect the issue by introducing a discussion on spherical-earth skeptics. Today, you have done both. Congratulations.

Lol, I think I feel Uncle Meats hand down my pants!

And I like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 5:37pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 5:27pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 5:17pm: Your arguing semantics again (deniers 101).  Everyone knows when they say the earth is "round" they mean "roughly spherical".  Everyone knows that when they say AGW is proven, they mean "scientific consensus, and beyond resonable doubt". If you are going to keep up this silly word game, you might as well leave. There are two things that anyone with an ounce of common sense or any basic understanding of climate science do not do: 1.  claim that a hypothesis has been well proven. 2.  try to deflect the issue by introducing a discussion on spherical-earth skeptics. Today, you have done both. Congratulations. Lol, I think I feel Uncle Meats hand down my pants! And I like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

http://i.qkme.me/Bu1.jpg

oh, uncle meat pleeeeeeeeeease flog me harder !!  :D :D

Uncle Meat wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 5:27pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 5:17pm: Your arguing semantics again (deniers 101).  Everyone knows when they say the earth is "round" they mean "roughly spherical".  Everyone knows that when they say AGW is proven, they mean "scientific consensus, and beyond resonable doubt". If you are going to keep up this silly word game, you might as well leave. There are two things that anyone with an ounce of common sense or any basic understanding of climate science do not do: 1.  claim that a hypothesis has been well proven. 2.  try to deflect the issue by introducing a discussion on spherical-earth skeptics. Today, you have done both. Congratulations.

I agree, you will not find climate scientists say AGW has been definitively proven, but what we are hearing, over and over again,  are terms like high confidence and very high confidence or very likely and extremely likely. So what we are talking about are extremely cautious, and by nature skeptical people, being 90 to 95% certain of anthropogenic warming.

If you want to play those odds, I don't want you, or anyone like you, near my chips.

So why are you in favor of the world's biggest polluter being able to pollute even more (who emits 30% of the entire pollution) ?

MOTR wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 7:40am:

If you want to play those odds, I don't want you, or anyone like you, near my chips.

"play those odds"  ???

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm an AGW sceptic.  That's it.  Full stop.  End of discussion.

I'm not standing in the way of anyone taking action against the threat of AGW (whether real or not).  I just have a different opinion on the science.

Are you seriously suggesting that I'm jeopardising your future by merely questioning the "science" behind AGW? 

Get real   ::)

Uncle Meat wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 12:36pm:

MOTR wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 7:40am: If you want to play those odds, I don't want you, or anyone like you, near my chips. "play those odds"  ??? What on earth are you talking about? I'm an AGW sceptic.  That's it.  Full stop.  End of discussion. I'm not standing in the way of anyone taking action against the threat of AGW (whether real or not).  I just have a different opinion on the science. Are you seriously suggesting that I'm jeopardising your future by merely questioning the "science" behind AGW?  Get real   ::)

You are a denier, not a sceptic. And as a denier you see your role to continually put doubt into any combined effort to stop AGW. Because it will take a combined effort.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 12:36pm: MOTR wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 7:40am: If you want to play those odds, I don't want you, or anyone like you, near my chips. "play those odds"  ??? What on earth are you talking about? I'm an AGW sceptic.  That's it.  Full stop.  End of discussion. I'm not standing in the way of anyone taking action against the threat of AGW (whether real or not).  I just have a different opinion on the science. Are you seriously suggesting that I'm jeopardising your future by merely questioning the "science" behind AGW?  Get real   ::) You are a denier, not a sceptic. And as a denier you see your role to continually put doubt into any combined effort to stop AGW. Because it will take a combined effort.

I'm a sceptic.

Your lack of reading and comprehension skills is only exceeded by your ignorance on all things scientific.

Go away.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 1:06pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 12:50pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 12:36pm: MOTR wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 7:40am: If you want to play those odds, I don't want you, or anyone like you, near my chips. "play those odds"  ??? What on earth are you talking about? I'm an AGW sceptic.  That's it.  Full stop.  End of discussion. I'm not standing in the way of anyone taking action against the threat of AGW (whether real or not).  I just have a different opinion on the science. Are you seriously suggesting that I'm jeopardising your future by merely questioning the "science" behind AGW?  Get real   ::) You are a denier, not a sceptic. And as a denier you see your role to continually put doubt into any combined effort to stop AGW. Because it will take a combined effort. I'm a sceptic.

You are not a sceptic, you are a denier.

You deny what has scientific consensus. There hasnt been a peer-reviewed published article to doubt AGW for ten years.

You are a denier, and you denying being a denier, only reinforces your denier characteristics.

;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 2:12pm:

You are not a sceptic, you are a denier. You deny what has scientific consensus. There hasnt been a peer-reviewed published article to doubt AGW for ten years. ;D

Wrong, again.  You're having another bad day.   ::)

I've said on many occasions that AGW is indeed the currently accepted hypothesis.  Nobody denies that fact.

I'm sceptical of the AGW evidence.  I think it's dubious, I don't deny its existence.

I used to be sceptical of your intelligence.  Now, however ...   :-/

Uncle Meat wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 2:28pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 2:12pm: You are not a sceptic, you are a denier. You deny what has scientific consensus. There hasnt been a peer-reviewed published article to doubt AGW for ten years. ;D Wrong, again.  You're having another bad day.   ::) I've said on many occasions that AGW is indeed the currently accepted hypothesis.  Nobody denies that fact. I'm sceptical of the AGW evidence.  I think it's dubious, I don't deny its existence. I used to be sceptical of your intelligence.  Now, however ...   :-/

So, despite every peer-reviewed published scientists of the last 10 years not raising any questions of dubious-ness,  you seem to know better.

You are nothing more than a denier pretending to be clever, when you are the exact opposite.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 3:42pm:

...  pretending to be clever, when you are the exact opposite.

Tell me again about how AGW has been "well proven".

Please.

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1060/5124699989_a414738d44.jpg

Uncle Meat wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 3:47pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 3:42pm: ...  pretending to be clever, when you are the exact opposite. Tell me again about how AGW has been "well proven".

Well for a start, there hasnt been a peer-reviewed published article to doubt AGW for ten years.

How about you tell me why you are sceptical about AGW.  Feel free to speak in scientific terms (you are a scientist I assume), and obviously no quoting un-reviewed blogs.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 3:50pm:

How about you tell me why you are sceptical about AGW.  Feel free to speak in scientific terms (you are a scientist I assume), and obviously no quoting un-reviewed blogs.

I'll use the scientific terms they use:

- tree rings
- ice cores
- multi-proxy reconstructions

Uncle Meat wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 3:50pm: How about you tell me why you are sceptical about AGW.  Feel free to speak in scientific terms (you are a scientist I assume), and obviously no quoting un-reviewed blogs. I'll use the scientific terms they use: - tree rings - ice cores - multi-proxy reconstructions

Who are "they" ?  The evil scientific conspiracy. You get more loony every day.

So you can name 3 terms, does that mean you have proven AGW wrong ?
Youve fallen at the first hurdle.

;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 3:59pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 3:50pm: How about you tell me why you are sceptical about AGW.  Feel free to speak in scientific terms (you are a scientist I assume), and obviously no quoting un-reviewed blogs. I'll use the scientific terms they use: - tree rings - ice cores - multi-proxy reconstructions Who are "they" ?  The evil scientific conspiracy. You get more loony every day. So you can name 3 terms, does that mean you have proven AGW wrong ? Youve fallen at the first hurdle. ;D

FFS, is there something wrong with you?  Seriously?

You said: "How about you tell me why you are sceptical about AGW."

I then named the three main things that make me sceptical about AGW.

You also said: "Feel free to speak in scientific terms".

So, I provided the three terms that they actually use.
And now, you ask me who "they" are.  Are you serious?  Are you really that retarded?

"They" are the scientists.  The climate scientists who support AGW.  What is so hard to understand about that? 

There is no conspiracy and I have not "proven AGW wrong". I've told you three things that make me sceptical of the AGW hypothesis.  Three things that every climate scientist discusses when talking about this topic.

FFS kid, grow up.

Before breakfast each day,  I consciously think of how I can orchestrate a new worldwide conspiracy.  :P

http://jazzroc.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/conspiracy.jpg

Uncle Meat wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 3:50pm: How about you tell me why you are sceptical about AGW.  Feel free to speak in scientific terms (you are a scientist I assume), and obviously no quoting un-reviewed blogs. I'll use the scientific terms they use: - tree rings - ice cores - multi-proxy reconstructions

What's that got to do with Atmospheric Physics?

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Who are "they" ?  The evil scientific conspiracy.

No, the scientists that support your AGW hypothesis, you moron.

Here, do some reading:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/069.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)

http://www.parc.ca/pdf/conference_proceedings/mar_03_high_resolution.pdf

"High Resolution Multi-Proxy-Climate Records From Ice Cores, Tree Rings,
Corals and Cultural sources; Reconstructions and Eigen Vectors; Results
and Significance
David A. Fisher
Terrain Sciences Division, Geological Survey of Canada
601 Booth St. Ottawa Ontario K1A 0E8
Canada fisher@nrcan.gc.ca"

FFS, you are a dead set idiot.

Yesterday you showed everyone how stupid you are by claiming that AGW has been "well proven".

Today you leave no doubt in any one's mind that you are by far the most ignorant person on climate change that has entered this forum.  The mind boggles.   ::)