Well!

http://www.news.com.au/national/sheep-fall-on-cars-after-truck-rolls/story-e6frfkvr-1226378368846


Quote:

It was raining sheep on Melbourne motorists after a truck carrying 400 livestock rolled off a bend and hung precariously over a highway. The dramatic crash in Laverton North, in Melbourne's west, occurred about 9pm (AEST) as the sheep truck was travelling to Geelong on the Western Ring Rd off-ramp, police said. Dead and injured sheep fell on the Princes Highway overpass below, hitting two vehicles. One of the cars rolled numerous times but the occupants were not injured, police said. The truck driver is also uninjured. The inbound Princes Highway has been blocked, with one outbound lane of the Westgate Freeway also closed. Police said the sheep carcasses will likely be cleaned up by council rangers this morning. No other vehicle was involved in the crash.

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2012/06/01/1226377/929180-sheep-crash.jpg

SOB

It is always sad to see so many AGW laying on the ground like that. Although I dont subscribe to their hysteria(scar emongering) and gaia like extremism, I do support them as humans.

A sad day for the AGW church.

So that is what sheep look like  ;D ;)

That's what the ALP will look like after the next Federal Election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFo6kmMZr3s

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 5:22pm:

It is always sad to see so many AGW laying on the ground like that. Although I dont subscribe to their hysteria(scar emongering) and gaia like extremism, I do support them as humans. A sad day for the AGW church. So that is what sheep look like  ;D ;)

Pretty rich coming from somebody who outsources his thinking on climate change to Anthony Watts.

MOTR wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:13am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:22pm: It is always sad to see so many AGW laying on the ground like that. Although I dont subscribe to their hysteria(scar emongering) and gaia like extremism, I do support them as humans. A sad day for the AGW church. So that is what sheep look like  ;D ;) Pretty rich coming from somebody who outsources his thinking on climate change to Anthony Watts.

Even richer coming from someone who outsources his thinking on climate change to 'skepticalscience'.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:14am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 8:13am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:22pm: It is always sad to see so many AGW laying on the ground like that. Although I dont subscribe to their hysteria(scar emongering) and gaia like extremism, I do support them as humans. A sad day for the AGW church. So that is what sheep look like  ;D ;) Pretty rich coming from somebody who outsources his thinking on climate change to Anthony Watts. Even richer coming from someone who outsources his thinking on climate change to 'skepticalscience'.

Progs, the difference between me and you is that I put effort into trying to understand what I'm reading. If you weren't such a coward you might be able to judge this firsthand.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338340234/75#75

I'm really quite interested in why you think this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

explains this.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UoZ19hKXPJU/Tyhtq6PrDUI/AAAAAAAAESo/OXg1rU9e8fE/s1600/SkepticsvRealists_500.gif

I love the last little graphic. I have seen the skeptic version a thousand times here on this forum. Of course, they would never use a graph. It is usually something like "on may 10 1964 it was 28 degrees, and on August 16 1996 it was 24 degrees, therefor the earth is cooling". No matter how many times you point out the idiocy, they keep falling for it. Every week there is a different version of the same mistake.

Like Abbott claiming we were going through a cooling period - notwithstanding rising CO2, just after we had lived through the hottest decade on record. At the time it seemed to be right-wing article of faith. Unless you believed in the global cooling canard you couldn't really claim to be a right-winger.

Here is a mainstream article outlining why this particular canard is not long for this world.

http://abcnews.go.com/technology/t/blogEntry?id=16239152

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/petergleick/files/2012/02/GlobalT-by-decades.png

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KAg3oXZkp6k/Tl3DOpV3RxI/AAAAAAAAAqA/P7tFMlcqGQY/s1600/sheep_3.jpg

SOB

What happened between 1880 & 1920 and 1940 & 1970?  :-/

Did CO2 emissions drop significantly in these time frames or did some other mysterious variable effect (change) the climate?  :-/

Swagman wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 10:13am:

What happened between 1880 & 1920 and 1940 & 1970?  :-/ Did CO2 emissions drop significantly in these time frames or did some other mysterious variable effect (change) the climate?  :-/

There is nothing particularly mysterious about the cooling effect of high concentrations of sulphate aerosols, something we experienced during the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.

MOTR wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 10:29am:

Swagman wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 10:13am: What happened between 1880 & 1920 and 1940 & 1970?  :-/ Did CO2 emissions drop significantly in these time frames or did some other mysterious variable effect (change) the climate?  :-/ There is nothing particularly mysterious about the cooling effect of high concentrations of sulphate aerosols, something we experienced during the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.

.....and the 1880s to 1920s? :-[

Back then there was far less CO2 in the atmosphere and natural variations were more dominant. From 1880 to 1920 solar activity was low and volcanic activity was high.

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:40am:

I love the last little graphic. I have seen the skeptic version a thousand times here on this forum. Of course, they would never use a graph. It is usually something like "on may 10 1964 it was 28 degrees, and on August 16 1996 it was 24 degrees, therefor the earth is cooling". No matter how many times you point out the idiocy, they keep falling for it. Every week there is a different version of the same mistake.

It would be a case of myopic vision.

The way to simulate this would be to add a sinusoidal waveform to a linearly increasing function. The climate-change skeptics would only be looking at a small part of the waveform (which would be smaller than a period of oscillation). Realists look at the entire waveform.

Speaking of skeptics, I've been itching to say that Lord Monckton looks like Mr. Bean with lighter hair. Every time I look at those eyes, it's like they're bulging out at me.