Will the return of El Nino this summer produce the hottest on record for Australia? If the northern hemisphere is anything to go by, it's going to be a scorcher.

I know you denialists will get all cranky about this headline, but there are some sobering figures in this article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the "largest temperature departure from average of any season on record." The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet's history.

NBNMyths wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2012 at 10:46pm:

Will the return of El Nino this summer produce the hottest on record for Australia? If the northern hemisphere is anything to go by, it's going to be a scorcher. I know you denialists will get all cranky about this headline, but there are some sobering figures in this article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719 If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe. Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the "largest temperature departure from average of any season on record." The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet's history.

Global Warming as an economic element is crap.... ;D ;D ;D

NBNMyths wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2012 at 10:46pm:

Will the return of El Nino this summer produce the hottest on record for Australia? If the northern hemisphere is anything to go by, it's going to be a scorcher.

Yes we will see. I will remember this comment, I was an elephant in a previous life.

Prevailing wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2012 at 10:57pm:

Global Warming as an economic element is crap.... NMS

I am confident that this means something which I probably do not agree with.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2012 at 11:04pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 10:57pm: Global Warming as an economic element is crap.... NMS I am confident that this means something which I probably do not agree with.

Yes it means it is economic vandalism and lunacy to impose reverse tariffs on our own industries and economic position and the people behind it should be gaoled for conspiracy to defraud Australians of their legal economic rights.  It doesn't matter if you don't agree with it its unconstitutional for the Government to impose this economic sanction on Australian citizens.... 8-) 8-)

Is Rolling Stone peer reviewed?

Shane B wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Is Rolling Stone peer reviewed?

Yeh it is getting good.

Rolling stone as a reference, weather as climate.

They have lost the plot with the science.

NBNMyths wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2012 at 10:46pm:

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Absolute junk. This assumes that events are independent of each other like in a lottery. The global average temperature does not fulfill this requirement (in technical terms, it is autocorrelated). It (the global climate average) would be white noise if that were so, but it is not. The author has not understood the null hypothesis.

Quote:

Global Warming's terrifying new maths

This is exactly the kind of human hating hysterical propaganda that caused that Brilliant science PHD student to massacre all of those innocent people in Colorado yesterday.... :( :(

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_south.htm

Btw, the US drought will have a considerable impact on  Global agricultural prices, including a big rise in corn pricing, which will have a considerable flow on effects.

All the more reason why we should protect our own food security with Tariffs and forbid sale of land for agriculture to foreign countries. :) :)

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 12:17am:

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_south.htm Btw, the US drought will have a considerable impact on  Global agricultural prices, including a big rise in corn pricing, which will have a considerable flow on effects.

So you have evidence this drought is the result of co2. How much is it co2 and how much is natural.

Desperation is all this theory is. Weather is now climate according to you lot.

Shane B wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Is Rolling Stone peer reviewed?

Yes it is. An ad hoc committee was formed to peer review Mr McKibben's article. Members of the committee were: David Bowie, Keith Richards, Mick Jagger, and Robert Downey Jr (after his release from jail for possession of a chemical substance).

For the weather is climate, the local is global nutjobs who are again trying to scam people. The globe is mostly cool.

Joe Bastardi

https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/227082807418171393/photo/1/large?tw_p=twt

https://p.twimg.com/AybCnDdCMAAVksC.jpg

Shane B wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2012 at 11:02pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 10:46pm: Will the return of El Nino this summer produce the hottest on record for Australia? If the northern hemisphere is anything to go by, it's going to be a scorcher. Yes we will see. I will remember this comment, I was an elephant in a previous life.

I have been struggling with this since it was posted, very tempted to speculate unkindly about what you may be in this life but no, I won’t do it.

You guys do understand that if something like 75% to 85% of scientists just happen to be right that about a billion people may die and that is probably already locked in, taking action now is more about acting on the next phase?

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 9:03am:

You guys do understand that if something like 75% to 85% of scientists just happen to be right that about a billion people may die and that is probably already locked in, taking action now is more about acting on the next phase?

We must have plenty of time, unless someone is actually going to tell us that CO2 in China, acts the same way as CO2 in Australia, then we are screwed according to your own logic.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 9:08am:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 9:03am: You guys do understand that if something like 75% to 85% of scientists just happen to be right that about a billion people may die and that is probably already locked in, taking action now is more about acting on the next phase? We must have plenty of time, unless someone is actually going to tell us that CO2 in China, acts the same way as CO2 in Australia, then we are screwed according to your own logic.

Yep we may well be screwed but I do not see the point in continuing to try to make it worse and to be putting ourselves into a worse position on the economy as well.

Our current position is not stationary - we have been getting worse at an accelerating rate, doing nothing is actually getting a lot worse all the time.

Quote:

Global Warming's terrifying new maths

This is just the kind of extremist fearmongering propaganda that causes Science students like the one in Colorado and other over educated professional human hating weirdos to go on massacres killing innocent people to stop global warming... :(

There is nothing human-hating to warn about upcoming problems.   In fact is his more human-hating to ignore them, and "let the poor suckers die", as the deniers wish to do.

This drought will be perfectly timed for a late 2013 election.

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

There is nothing human-hating to warn about upcoming problems.   In fact is his more human-hating to ignore them, and "let the poor suckers die", as the deniers wish to do. This drought will be perfectly timed for a late 2013 election.

Except at election time, people will be educated on what is a local event, what is weather not climate and what is propaganda from the greenies gang-green.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 8:49am:

For the weather is climate, the local is global nutjobs who are again trying to scam people. The globe is mostly cool. Joe Bastardi https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/227082807418171393/photo/1/large?tw_p=twt https://p.twimg.com/AybCnDdCMAAVksC.jpg

Progs,
I'm not sure, IF you are trying to be a Comedian?

Or, IF you are just a very trying Comedian?

I put up quality scientific organizations, such as -

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/  

The US National Climate Data Centre
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_south.htm

NASA
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

The US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html

The Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
http://www.csiro.au/

AND, you put up a talking head, named BIG Joe Bastardi.

I take it all back, YOU ARE A COMEDIAN, EITHER THAT
OR A NUTJOB!

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

There is nothing human-hating to warn about upcoming problems.   In fact is his more human-hating to ignore them, and "let the poor suckers die", as the deniers wish to do. This drought will be perfectly timed for a late 2013 election.

Squirm all you like but the Greens and the "professional class' have blood on their hands over this one - this one.  Scientific laws are supposed to be observable, predictable, repeatable which proves what the Greens are doing with science has nothing to do with science and everything to do with fraudulent and criminal economics. >:( >:(

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 11:39am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 8:49am: For the weather is climate, the local is global nutjobs who are again trying to scam people. The globe is mostly cool. Joe Bastardi https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/227082807418171393/photo/1/large?tw_p=twt https://p.twimg.com/AybCnDdCMAAVksC.jpg Progs, I'm not sure, IF you are trying to be a Comedian? Or, IF you are just a very trying Comedian? I put up quality scientific organizations, such as - The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/   The US National Climate Data Centre http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_south.htm NASA http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ The US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html The Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation http://www.csiro.au/ AND, you put up a talking head, named BIG Joe Bastardi. I take it all back, YOU ARE A COMEDIAN, EITHER THAT OR A NUTJOB!

Well thats a pretty weird picture of big Joe. If you cant see the local, not global, the weather, not climate on the picture of big joe, then you are what you are trying to call me or worse, a propagandist.

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 11:41am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 11:19am: There is nothing human-hating to warn about upcoming problems.   In fact is his more human-hating to ignore them, and "let the poor suckers die", as the deniers wish to do. This drought will be perfectly timed for a late 2013 election. Squirm all you like but the Greens and the "professional class' have blood on their hands over this one - this one.  Scientific laws are supposed to be observable, predictable, repeatable which proves what the Greens are doing with science has nothing to do with science and everything to do with fraudulent and criminal economics. >:( >:(

What blood ? 

Stop being so hysterical.

Anyway, speaking of terrifying maths.  The most terrifying number Ive seen is that to just stay within 2 degrees of warming, the average human emissions per person across the world is 3 tonnes per year.
We fine Australians are about 19 tonnes a year. Euro's around 7, Chinese around 6.5, Yanks about 17.

Even if the right wingers decided to take the politics out, would we be even any chance of reducing our emssions by a whopping 80% ??

There is a clear link between this kind of extremist hysterical human hating fearmongering and over educated eco warrior scientists going out killing people like the Colorado massacre and the una Bomber... 8-) 8-)

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 12:03pm:

There is a clear link between this kind of extremist hysterical human hating fearmongering and over educated eco warrior scientists going out killing people like the Colorado massacre and the una Bomber... 8-) 8-)

To borrow a phrase from Longweekend's playbook, "you are an idiot"!

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 11:48am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 11:39am: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 8:49am: For the weather is climate, the local is global nutjobs who are again trying to scam people. The globe is mostly cool. Joe Bastardi https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/227082807418171393/photo/1/large?tw_p=twt https://p.twimg.com/AybCnDdCMAAVksC.jpg Progs, I'm not sure, IF you are trying to be a Comedian? Or, IF you are just a very trying Comedian? I put up quality scientific organizations, such as - The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/   The US National Climate Data Centre http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_south.htm NASA http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ The US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html The Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation http://www.csiro.au/ AND, you put up a talking head, named BIG Joe Bastardi. I take it all back, YOU ARE A COMEDIAN, EITHER THAT OR A NUTJOB! Well thats a pretty weird picture of big Joe. If you cant see the local, not global, the weather, not climate on the picture of big joe, then you are what you are trying to call me or worse, a propagandist.

It's not so much about BIG Joe Bastardi, IT'S MORE ABOUT THE QUALITY OF -
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/ 

The US National Climate Data Centre
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_south.htm

NASA
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

The US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html

The Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
http://www.csiro.au/

and, the probability of their combined scientific scrutiny, leading more likely outcomes.

You probably don't see, but any business worth it's place in existence, will weigh up the risks arrayed against it and take appropriate measures (Risk prevention) to try to minimise those risks & maximise the likelihood of the business being successful.

Those businesses who take appropriate Risk Prevention measures are more likely to survive & prosper, whilst those businesses that don't undertake the appropriate risk prevention measures, are more likely to flounder & turn belly up.

What you and others are saying, is your not even going to do a Risk survey, so you are blind to what is coming and therefore you & others similar are much more likely to go belly up.

However, the real problem is that IF you & others like you (the LNP LOONS & the Heartland Institute) are those in power, then it is also more likely you will take the rest of humanity with you!

Finally, I don't know what motivates you, but it sure isn't good common sense.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 11:31am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 11:19am: There is nothing human-hating to warn about upcoming problems.   In fact is his more human-hating to ignore them, and "let the poor suckers die", as the deniers wish to do. This drought will be perfectly timed for a late 2013 election. Except at election time, people will be educated on what is a local event, what is weather not climate and what is propaganda from the greenies gang-green.

I'd like to see that!

But, I guarantee, it won't come from you OR the LNP LOONS!

The link between global warming fearmongering propaganda and organized crime and terrorism is clear... 8-) 8-) 8-)

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 1:28pm:

The link between global warming fearmongering propaganda and organized crime and terrorism is clear... 8-) 8-) 8-)

Ah, more -
Credible
Reliable
Abundant
Paradoxes

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 1:12pm:

Finally, I don't know what motivates you, but it sure isn't good common sense. [/b]

That is a very good question.


What does motivate a denialist.

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 1:35pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 1:28pm: The link between global warming fearmongering propaganda and organized crime and terrorism is clear... 8-) 8-) 8-) Ah, more - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes

Aussies are sick of the lies and the Greed, the Negativity and the corruption from the Green Economic Rationalists - Globalism is dead, its a failed ideology...again... ;D ;D ;D

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 1:53pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 1:35pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 1:28pm: The link between global warming fearmongering propaganda and organized crime and terrorism is clear... 8-) 8-) 8-) Ah, more - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes Aussies are sick of the lies and the Greed, the Negativity and the corruption from the Green Economic Rationalists - Globalism is dead, its a failed ideology...again... ;D ;D ;D

Next time you are in kmart, you might want to check the "made in .... " labels.  Globalism is alive and well.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 1:51pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 1:12pm: Finally, I don't know what motivates you, but it sure isn't good common sense. [/b] That is a very good question. What does motivate a denialist.

Healthy skepticism and an ability to think critically.

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 1:53pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 1:35pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 1:28pm: The link between global warming fearmongering propaganda and organized crime and terrorism is clear... 8-) 8-) 8-) Ah, more - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes Aussies are sick of the lies and the Greed, the Negativity and the corruption from the Green Economic Rationalists - Globalism is dead, its a failed ideology...again... ;D ;D ;D

Well, I agree with some of that, but IF the Economy is heading South there's no point in being an Optimist, YOU NEED TO BE A REALIST!

It seems there are a few realists acting out in today's markets, with the All Ord's well down.
http://realtimebigchart.gtm.idmanagedsolutions.com/custom/fairfax-com-au/market-chart.img?symb=XAO

Shane B wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2012 at 11:02pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 10:46pm: Will the return of El Nino this summer produce the hottest on record for Australia? If the northern hemisphere is anything to go by, it's going to be a scorcher. Yes we will see. I will remember this comment, I was an elephant in a previous life.

the anti-cyclones off of antartica have been changing for a long time: this aint news to anyone!!

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 1:51pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 1:12pm: Finally, I don't know what motivates you, but it sure isn't good common sense. [/b] That is a very good question. What does motivate a denialist.

a denialist is motivated by the status quo for some reason....it's quite a natural reaction to deny change, and the need for change to meet change, as change is scary!


"FIRE",..... see!!

  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Shane B wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 2:01pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 1:51pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 1:12pm: Finally, I don't know what motivates you, but it sure isn't good common sense. [/b] That is a very good question. What does motivate a denialist. Healthy skepticism and an ability to think critically.

How come you arent skeptical that the fossil fuel industry isnt running a disinformation campaign of which you are a mere pawn. ?

Didnt tobacco teach you anything ?

These egg heads don't live in the real world...they are off their tree, these are not real scientists - they are Nazi scientists and slaves to economic and political agendas not the pursuit of truth. :D :D

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 3:57pm:

These egg heads don't live in the real world...they are off their tree, these are not real scientists - they are Nazi scientists and slaves to economic and political agendas not the pursuit of truth. :D :D

a denialist is motivated by the status quo for some reason....it's quite a natural reaction to deny change, and the need for change to meet change, as change is scary!


"FIRE",..... see!!

  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 3:59pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 3:57pm: These egg heads don't live in the real world...they are off their tree, these are not real scientists - they are Nazi scientists and slaves to economic and political agendas not the pursuit of truth. :D :D a denialist is motivated by the status quo for some reason....it's quite a natural reaction to deny change, and the need for change to meet change, as change is scary! "FIRE",..... see!!   ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Sane people see the world more rationally than Globalist/Economic Rationalist/Free Trade/ETS/Carbon Tax loons who are marching the Western world steadfastly to third world status and a New Great Depression.  They are full of crap, lazy, abusers, not saviors of the environment - they are phucked in the head, they have no answers, they sponge off child labor and thats the bottom line.... :D :D :D

The bottom line is the anticyclones off antarctica have been changing for a long time.

The rain fall patterns have been changing for a long time.

The anti-cyclones no longer reach into the country like they used to....

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 4:15pm:

The bottom line is the anticyclones off antarctica have been changing for a long time. The rain fall patterns have been changing for a long time. The anti-cyclones no longer reach into the country like they used to....

The bottom line is this has information does not validate the economic policies you are trying to force on Australia which are environmental and economic vandalism.  You can parrot this crap all you like - there is no rational connection between this and justification for Carbon Trading or free trade.  therefore you are just fearmongering and spreading meaningless nonsensical propaganda for no particular positive reason. 8-) 8-)

Climate change does not justify not putting tariffs and duties on countries that have exploitative labor laws and working conditions. 8-) 8-) 8-)

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 9:00am:

Shane B wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 11:02pm: NBNMyths wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 10:46pm: Will the return of El Nino this summer produce the hottest on record for Australia? If the northern hemisphere is anything to go by, it's going to be a scorcher. Yes we will see. I will remember this comment, I was an elephant in a previous life. I have been struggling with this since it was posted, very tempted to speculate unkindly about what you may be in this life but no, I won’t do it.

Yeah, saw that and all I got from it was that he was slow. But that's just me. Wonder what changed in this life?  ;)

Gist wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 4:58pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 9:00am: Shane B wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 11:02pm: NBNMyths wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 10:46pm: Will the return of El Nino this summer produce the hottest on record for Australia? If the northern hemisphere is anything to go by, it's going to be a scorcher. Yes we will see. I will remember this comment, I was an elephant in a previous life. I have been struggling with this since it was posted, very tempted to speculate unkindly about what you may be in this life but no, I won’t do it. Yeah, saw that and all I got from it was that he was slow. But that's just me. Wonder what changed in this life?  ;)

I got fat and slow .... maybe I read to much into it

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 4:23pm:

Climate change does not justify not putting tariffs and duties on countries that have exploitative labor laws and working conditions. 8-) 8-) 8-)

Well, why don't you run tell us the solution to climate change!??!

There is no rational connection between climate change and justification for free trade, an emissions trading scheme and a carbon tax...such a connection does not exist in fact free trade and its attendant ETS is in fact vandalizing the environment - not helping it.  In short the Greens and ALP are full of crap on the Carbon Tax - they are bald faced liars and fraudsters who belong in gaol. 8-) 8-)

Liar Liar Pants on Fire... :D :D

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 5:18pm:

There is no rational connection between climate change and justification for free trade, an emissions trading scheme and a carbon tax...such a connection does not exist in fact free trade and its attendant ETS is in fact vandalizing the environment - not helping it.  In short the Greens and ALP are full of crap on the Carbon Tax - they are bald faced liars and fraudsters who belong in gaol. 8-) 8-) Liar Liar Pants on Fire... :D :D

We all note you don't like offering solutions...........   ;) ;)

You must smoke crack and care about what brand of sunglasses you wear to hide your scary eyes at the pub that sells the boutique beers!  ;) ;) ;) ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 5:25pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:18pm: There is no rational connection between climate change and justification for free trade, an emissions trading scheme and a carbon tax...such a connection does not exist in fact free trade and its attendant ETS is in fact vandalizing the environment - not helping it.  In short the Greens and ALP are full of crap on the Carbon Tax - they are bald faced liars and fraudsters who belong in gaol. 8-) 8-) Liar Liar Pants on Fire... :D :D We all note you don't like offering solutions...........   ;) ;) You must smoke crack and care about what brand of sunglasses you wear to hide your scary eyes at the pub that sells the boutique beers!  ;) ;) ;) ;)

We have the solution to Australia's economy and sustainable self sufficient economic management you have nothing but crap. ;D ;D ;D

Shane B wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Is Rolling Stone peer reviewed?

That's hilarious. A denier wanting peer-reviewed evidence.  :D :D :D :D :D :D

Given that essentially all the peer reviewed evidence supports CC/AGW, why haven't you accepted it so far?

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 5:31pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:25pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:18pm: There is no rational connection between climate change and justification for free trade, an emissions trading scheme and a carbon tax...such a connection does not exist in fact free trade and its attendant ETS is in fact vandalizing the environment - not helping it.  In short the Greens and ALP are full of crap on the Carbon Tax - they are bald faced liars and fraudsters who belong in gaol. 8-) 8-) Liar Liar Pants on Fire... :D :D We all note you don't like offering solutions...........   ;) ;) You must smoke crack and care about what brand of sunglasses you wear to hide your scary eyes at the pub that sells the boutique beers!  ;) ;) ;) ;) We have the solution to Australia's economy and sustainable self sufficient economic management you have nothing but crap. ;D ;D ;D

What you have is "Diddly, Diddly squat"!

Remember folks there is no logical connection at all between Global warming and the economic agenda for an ETS & Carbon Tax - its a con, its a fraud, its a lie....Globalization Free Trade and Carbon Trading is vandalizing the environment...any thing else they say is crap.... ;D ;D ;D

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 5:41pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:31pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:25pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:18pm: There is no rational connection between climate change and justification for free trade, an emissions trading scheme and a carbon tax...such a connection does not exist in fact free trade and its attendant ETS is in fact vandalizing the environment - not helping it.  In short the Greens and ALP are full of crap on the Carbon Tax - they are bald faced liars and fraudsters who belong in gaol. 8-) 8-) Liar Liar Pants on Fire... :D :D We all note you don't like offering solutions...........   ;) ;) You must smoke crack and care about what brand of sunglasses you wear to hide your scary eyes at the pub that sells the boutique beers!  ;) ;) ;) ;) We have the solution to Australia's economy and sustainable self sufficient economic management you have nothing but crap. ;D ;D ;D What you have is "Diddly, Diddly squat"!

Our solutions are Fair trading, self sufficiency and sustainability...yours speak for themselves...crap. ::) ::)

Shane B wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 2:01pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 1:51pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 1:12pm: Finally, I don't know what motivates you, but it sure isn't good common sense. [/b] That is a very good question. What does motivate a denialist. Healthy skepticism and an ability to think critically.

No, that's what describes a skeptic, not a denier.

A skeptic weighs up the scientific evidence and forms an opinion based on that evidence.

A denier cherry picks evidence that supports their position, cannot logically weigh evidence based on source, denies everything that disagrees with their position, usually making claims of conspiracy/corruption to explain their non-acceptance of the evidence they disagree with.

Free Trade...Globalization...Economic Rationalism...Mindless Consumerism & Production & Consumption...Carbon Trading...

Fail....

;D ;D ;D ;D

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 5:31pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:25pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:18pm: There is no rational connection between climate change and justification for free trade, an emissions trading scheme and a carbon tax...such a connection does not exist in fact free trade and its attendant ETS is in fact vandalizing the environment - not helping it.  In short the Greens and ALP are full of crap on the Carbon Tax - they are bald faced liars and fraudsters who belong in gaol. 8-) 8-) Liar Liar Pants on Fire... :D :D We all note you don't like offering solutions...........   ;) ;) You must smoke crack and care about what brand of sunglasses you wear to hide your scary eyes at the pub that sells the boutique beers!  ;) ;) ;) ;) We have the solution to Australia's economy and sustainable self sufficient economic management you have nothing but crap. ;D ;D ;D

Why can't you give us a solution to climate change?  :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*

-->smoking crack is good fun if you do it like twice and then it gets old dood!!


wake up fella,... it's crap that gets you beaten up unless you stay at home where it won't get you beaten up and then,.... you're just some loner smokin' crack who's only company ends up being the dealer who supplys your habit!!

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 5:45pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:41pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:31pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:25pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:18pm: There is no rational connection between climate change and justification for free trade, an emissions trading scheme and a carbon tax...such a connection does not exist in fact free trade and its attendant ETS is in fact vandalizing the environment - not helping it.  In short the Greens and ALP are full of crap on the Carbon Tax - they are bald faced liars and fraudsters who belong in gaol. 8-) 8-) Liar Liar Pants on Fire... :D :D We all note you don't like offering solutions...........   ;) ;) You must smoke crack and care about what brand of sunglasses you wear to hide your scary eyes at the pub that sells the boutique beers!  ;) ;) ;) ;) We have the solution to Australia's economy and sustainable self sufficient economic management you have nothing but crap. ;D ;D ;D What you have is "Diddly, Diddly squat"! Our solutions are Fair trading, self sufficiency and sustainability...yours speak for themselves...crap. ::) ::)

Where are the solutions to climate change???? ::) ::) ::) ::)  :-*

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 5:53pm:

Free Trade...Globalization...Economic Rationalism...Mindless Consumerism & Production & Consumption...Carbon Trading... Fail.... ;D ;D ;D ;D

climate change solutions please mr!!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 6:04pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:53pm: Free Trade...Globalization...Economic Rationalism...Mindless Consumerism & Production & Consumption...Carbon Trading... Fail.... ;D ;D ;D ;D climate change solutions please mr!!!

Put sensible tariffs ad duties on imports and subsidies on Australian agriculture and manufacturing endeavors.  Implement fair trading policy, this is an economy based on sustainability and need, not reed and exploitation.  Build products that last, not cheap throwaways....We are only per capita big consumers and emitters because of your policies buddy - not ours... :P :P

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 5:45pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:41pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:31pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:25pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:18pm: There is no rational connection between climate change and justification for free trade, an emissions trading scheme and a carbon tax...such a connection does not exist in fact free trade and its attendant ETS is in fact vandalizing the environment - not helping it.  In short the Greens and ALP are full of crap on the Carbon Tax - they are bald faced liars and fraudsters who belong in gaol. 8-) 8-) Liar Liar Pants on Fire... :D :D We all note you don't like offering solutions...........   ;) ;) You must smoke crack and care about what brand of sunglasses you wear to hide your scary eyes at the pub that sells the boutique beers!  ;) ;) ;) ;) We have the solution to Australia's economy and sustainable self sufficient economic management you have nothing but crap. ;D ;D ;D What you have is "Diddly, Diddly squat"! Our solutions are Fair trading, self sufficiency and sustainability...yours speak for themselves...crap. ::) ::)

You're not prevaling, you are Bo Diddly & that's what you have is Diddly Squat!

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 6:09pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 6:04pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:53pm: Free Trade...Globalization...Economic Rationalism...Mindless Consumerism & Production & Consumption...Carbon Trading... Fail.... ;D ;D ;D ;D climate change solutions please mr!!! Put sensible tariffs ad duties on imports and subsidies on Australian agriculture and manufacturing endeavors.  Implement fair trading policy, this is an economy based on sustainability and need, not reed and exploitation.  Build products that last, not cheap throwaways....We are only per capita big consumers and emitters because of your policies buddy - not ours... :P :P

Sensible ay!??!

Dood, you're a looper!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 6:13pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 6:09pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 6:04pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:53pm: Free Trade...Globalization...Economic Rationalism...Mindless Consumerism & Production & Consumption...Carbon Trading... Fail.... ;D ;D ;D ;D climate change solutions please mr!!! Put sensible tariffs ad duties on imports and subsidies on Australian agriculture and manufacturing endeavors.  Implement fair trading policy, this is an economy based on sustainability and need, not reed and exploitation.  Build products that last, not cheap throwaways....We are only per capita big consumers and emitters because of your policies buddy - not ours... :P :P Sensible ay!??! Dood, you're a looper!!

You are mindless consumer  who wants others
to pay for the privilege of your greed and unsustainable expectations - you pal are a joke.  Globalization, Free Trade, Mining Boom, ETS, Carbon Trading = co & Enviro Vandalism...FAIL.... ;D ;D ;D

What are sensible tariffs then?

  :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 6:31pm:

What are sensible tariffs then?   :D :D

The net sustainable economic and environmental outcome where production and consumption more rationally mirrors need and not greed...I have answers, you have crap and a corporate agenda.  The free trade brigade are habitual failures, they are not sincere on the environment or sustainability, they are liars, they are stuffed full of crap... 8-) 8-) 8-)

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 6:37pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 6:31pm: What are sensible tariffs then?   :D :D The net sustainable economic and environmental outcome where production and consumption more rationally mirrors need and not greed...I have answers, you have crap and a corporate agenda.  The free trade brigade are habitual failures, they are not sincere on the environment or sustainability, they are liars, they are stuffed full of crap... 8-) 8-) 8-)

You provide no answers!

I asked you what sensible tarrifs were and you didn't answer!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 6:45pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 6:37pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 6:31pm: What are sensible tariffs then?   :D :D The net sustainable economic and environmental outcome where production and consumption more rationally mirrors need and not greed...I have answers, you have crap and a corporate agenda.  The free trade brigade are habitual failures, they are not sincere on the environment or sustainability, they are liars, they are stuffed full of crap... 8-) 8-) 8-) You provide no answers! I asked you what sensible tarrifs were and you didn't answer!!

Yes I did - dont lie. ;D ;D ;D

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 6:54pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 6:45pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 6:37pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 6:31pm: What are sensible tariffs then?   :D :D The net sustainable economic and environmental outcome where production and consumption more rationally mirrors need and not greed...I have answers, you have crap and a corporate agenda.  The free trade brigade are habitual failures, they are not sincere on the environment or sustainability, they are liars, they are stuffed full of crap... 8-) 8-) 8-) You provide no answers! I asked you what sensible tarrifs were and you didn't answer!! Yes I did - dont lie. ;D ;D ;D

No you didn't!  :o :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 6:55pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 6:54pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 6:45pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 6:37pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 6:31pm: What are sensible tariffs then?   :D :D The net sustainable economic and environmental outcome where production and consumption more rationally mirrors need and not greed...I have answers, you have crap and a corporate agenda.  The free trade brigade are habitual failures, they are not sincere on the environment or sustainability, they are liars, they are stuffed full of crap... 8-) 8-) 8-) You provide no answers! I asked you what sensible tarrifs were and you didn't answer!! Yes I did - dont lie. ;D ;D ;D No you didn't!  :o :o

You are a denialist...I cant help you and your planet hating psychosis.... :( :(

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

There is nothing human-hating to warn about upcoming problems.   In fact is his more human-hating to ignore them, and "let the poor suckers die", as the deniers wish to do. This drought will be perfectly timed for a late 2013 election.

Which drought would that be???

Ive a great Idea ...lets all bury our heads in the sand, do nothing and then when its too late we can blame the scientists .... after all, its their fault we never listened .....

NBNMyths wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 5:39pm:

Shane B wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 11:10pm: Is Rolling Stone peer reviewed? That's hilarious. A denier wanting peer-reviewed evidence.  :D :D :D :D :D :D Given that essentially all the peer reviewed evidence supports CC/AGW, why haven't you accepted it so far?

So you believe rolling stones to be peer-reviewed. lol that is strange considering you lecture others. You are just another propagandist like all the other mann-made climate pseudo science followers.

The worm is turning, the peer-review process is less under the lock and key of the nutjob AGW gate-keeping. There is plenty of new peer-reviews that have had this great time of less gate-keeping and more eyes on the science process.

John Smith wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 8:02pm:

Ive a great Idea ...lets all bury our heads in the sand, do nothing and then when its too late we can blame the scientists .... after all, its their fault we never listened .....

Well you would be partly right.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 8:14pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:39pm: Shane B wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 11:10pm: Is Rolling Stone peer reviewed? That's hilarious. A denier wanting peer-reviewed evidence.  :D :D :D :D :D :D Given that essentially all the peer reviewed evidence supports CC/AGW, why haven't you accepted it so far? So you believe rolling stones to be peer-reviewed. lol that is strange considering you lecture others. You are just another propagandist like all the other mann-made climate pseudo science followers.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course it isn't peer-reviewed. My point is that you never accept peer reviewed science on the topic anyway, so why would you start if RS was?

NBNMyths wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 8:26pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 8:14pm: NBNMyths wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:39pm: Shane B wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 11:10pm: Is Rolling Stone peer reviewed? That's hilarious. A denier wanting peer-reviewed evidence.  :D :D :D :D :D :D Given that essentially all the peer reviewed evidence supports CC/AGW, why haven't you accepted it so far? So you believe rolling stones to be peer-reviewed. lol that is strange considering you lecture others. You are just another propagandist like all the other mann-made climate pseudo science followers. Don't be ridiculous. Of course it isn't peer-reviewed. My point is that you never accept peer reviewed science on the topic anyway, so why would you start if RS was?

Like I said, the worm is turning. This pseudo science might become an actual science one day. There are still some things to do, but the fight for real science is progressing.

I am sure you would appreciate Richard Feynman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 8:38pm:

Like I said, the worm is turning. This pseudo science might become an actual science one day. There are still some things to do, but the fight for real science is progressing.

It's only turning further towards the direction you don't like....

NBNMyths wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 10:37pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 8:38pm: Like I said, the worm is turning. This pseudo science might become an actual science one day. There are still some things to do, but the fight for real science is progressing. It's only turning further towards the direction you don't like....

Not at all. Peer-reviews are having to table their data, not completely fixed yet, but on its way. No more 'the dog ate my homework' hockey sticks. Data is going to be available for others to rightly prove the theory wrong. That is science. If it cant be proved wrong, then it is temporarily right/not wrong.

The direction is to get away from gate-keeping and toward full disclosure. If co2 is the problem according to real science, then I would be on board.

The Old Parties...Greens, Lib, Lab - 30 years of epic ideological, economic and environmental policy Fail - the road to hell is paved with good intentions morons - but i suspect yours are malicious and corrupt. :P :P

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 8:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 8:02pm: Ive a great Idea ...lets all bury our heads in the sand, do nothing and then when its too late we can blame the scientists .... after all, its their fault we never listened ..... Well you would be partly right.

You don't need to worry, you're already a step ahead of everyone else .... your heads already in the sand ....

Whats the difference between this crap and any other doomsday Armageddon fantasy - the point is the Greens and Labor are environmental vandals and they have nothing but fail...they should be ashamed of their anti planet consumption subsidizing policies.  Then Rise Up Australia Party has the answers, the old parties have squat... 8-) 8-) 8-)

Prevailing wrote on Jul 24^th, 2012 at 1:55pm:

Whats the difference between this crap and any other doomsday Armageddon fantasy - the point is the Greens and Labor are environmental vandals and they have nothing but fail...they should be ashamed of their anti planet consumption subsidizing policies.  Then Rise Up Australia Party has the answers, the old parties have squat... 8-) 8-) 8-)

Rise up Australia party has two platforms.  Hate muslims, hate homo's.   

What has that got to do with climate change ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 24^th, 2012 at 3:21pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jul 24th, 2012 at 1:55pm: Whats the difference between this crap and any other doomsday Armageddon fantasy - the point is the Greens and Labor are environmental vandals and they have nothing but fail...they should be ashamed of their anti planet consumption subsidizing policies.  Then Rise Up Australia Party has the answers, the old parties have squat... 8-) 8-) 8-) Rise up Australia party has two platforms.  Hate muslims, hate homo's.    What has that got to do with climate change ?

No they advocate religious freedom, they oppose the imposition of any religious law or belief on people by force - they also oppose the state legislating on traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreating family and yes they oppose the state using homosexual propaganda as a weapon against the Australian people.  So what is your problem,?  You dont know because you have squat and you dont know why you even think the way you do - you just eat, shite, sleep and fart and don't know anything. ::) ::)

NBNMyths wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 5:39pm:

Shane B wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 11:10pm: Is Rolling Stone peer reviewed? That's hilarious. A denier wanting peer-reviewed evidence.  :D :D :D :D :D :D Given that essentially all the peer reviewed evidence supports CC/AGW, why haven't you accepted it so far?

your masturbation over 'peer review' is funny. Peer review does not guarantee that an article is correct. it doesnt even gauarntee that it is the consensus position of science. it only means that a peer or two thinks the article is ok. And even that doesnt mean they agree with it, only that the articl has value.


peer reviewers at the time said Einstein was dead-wrong. They were not bad people or stupid people. They were however WRONG.

and that is the point.

Prevailing wrote on Jul 24^th, 2012 at 3:27pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 24th, 2012 at 3:21pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 24th, 2012 at 1:55pm: Whats the difference between this crap and any other doomsday Armageddon fantasy - the point is the Greens and Labor are environmental vandals and they have nothing but fail...they should be ashamed of their anti planet consumption subsidizing policies.  Then Rise Up Australia Party has the answers, the old parties have squat... 8-) 8-) 8-) Rise up Australia party has two platforms.  Hate muslims, hate homo's.    What has that got to do with climate change ? No they advocate religious freedom, they oppose the imposition of any religious law or belief on people by force - they also oppose the state legislating on traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreating family and yes they oppose the state using homosexual propaganda as a weapon against the Australian people.  So what is your problem,?  You dont know because you have squat and you dont know why you even think the way you do - you just eat, shite, sleep and fart and don't know anything. ::) ::)

Our laws are based on modern christianity.  Therefore you dumb ass party needs to go back and rework all our laws.

Marriage has nothing to do with a family. Are you going to inforce that childless hetro marriages automatically disolve after 10 years ?

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

Prevailing wrote on Jul 24th, 2012 at 3:27pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 24th, 2012 at 3:21pm: Prevailing wrote on Jul 24th, 2012 at 1:55pm: Whats the difference between this crap and any other doomsday Armageddon fantasy - the point is the Greens and Labor are environmental vandals and they have nothing but fail...they should be ashamed of their anti planet consumption subsidizing policies.  Then Rise Up Australia Party has the answers, the old parties have squat... 8-) 8-) 8-) Rise up Australia party has two platforms.  Hate muslims, hate homo's.    What has that got to do with climate change ? No they advocate religious freedom, they oppose the imposition of any religious law or belief on people by force - they also oppose the state legislating on traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreating family and yes they oppose the state using homosexual propaganda as a weapon against the Australian people.  So what is your problem,?  You dont know because you have squat and you dont know why you even think the way you do - you just eat, shite, sleep and fart and don't know anything. ::) ::) Our laws are based on modern christianity.  Therefore you dumb ass party needs to go back and rework all our laws. Marriage has nothing to do with a family. Are you going to inforce that childless hetro marriages automatically disolve after 10 years ?

Our law is eternal and protects our freedom forever - you can never get rid of it - it is your nemesis - you FAIL ;D ;D

Our law is structured in such a way it will bugger you in the end every time because its principles are righteous....its above your IQ pay packet... ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2012 at 3:37pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:39pm: Shane B wrote on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 11:10pm: Is Rolling Stone peer reviewed? That's hilarious. A denier wanting peer-reviewed evidence.  :D :D :D :D :D :D Given that essentially all the peer reviewed evidence supports CC/AGW, why haven't you accepted it so far? your masturbation over 'peer review' is funny. Peer review does not guarantee that an article is correct. it doesnt even gauarntee that it is the consensus position of science. it only means that a peer or two thinks the article is ok. And even that doesnt mean they agree with it, only that the articl has value. peer reviewers at the time said Einstein was dead-wrong. They were not bad people or stupid people. They were however WRONG. and that is the point.

I'm not the one that brought peer review up. It was your denialist mate Shane that asked for peer review, apparently forgetting that it holds no weight with him (or you) anyway, so what was the point of asking for it?

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2012 at 10:41pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 10:37pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 8:38pm: Like I said, the worm is turning. This pseudo science might become an actual science one day. There are still some things to do, but the fight for real science is progressing. It's only turning further towards the direction you don't like.... Not at all. Peer-reviews are having to table their data, not completely fixed yet, but on its way. No more 'the dog ate my homework' hockey sticks. Data is going to be available for others to rightly prove the theory wrong. That is science. If it cant be proved wrong, then it is temporarily right/not wrong. The direction is to get away from gate-keeping and toward full disclosure. If co2 is the problem according to real science, then I would be on board.

This is part of what is changing for the better

---------
IF THERE is any endeavour whose fruits should be freely available, that endeavour is surely publicly financed science. Morally, taxpayers who wish to should be able to read about it without further expense. And science advances through cross-fertilisation between projects. Barriers to that exchange slow it down.

There is a widespread feeling that the journal publishers who have mediated this exchange for the past century or more are becoming an impediment to it. One of the latest converts is the British government. On July 16th it announced that, from 2013, the results of taxpayer-financed research would be available, free and online, for anyone to read and redistribute.

Britain’s government is not alone. On July 17th the European Union followed suit. It proposes making research paid for by its next scientific-spending round—which runs from 2014 to 2020, and will hand out about €80 billion, or $100 billion, in grants—similarly easy to get hold of. In America, the National Institutes of Health (NIH, the single-biggest source of civil research funds in the world) has required open-access publishing since 2008. And the Wellcome Trust, a British foundation that is the world’s second-biggest charitable source of scientific money, after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, also insists that those who take its shilling make their work available free.

Criticism of journal publishers usually boils down to two things. One is that their processes take months, when the internet could allow them to take days. The other is that because each paper is like a mini-monopoly, which workers in the field have to read if they are to advance their own research, there is no incentive to keep the price down. The publishers thus have scientists—or, more accurately, their universities, which pay the subscriptions—in an armlock. That, combined with the fact that the raw material (manuscripts of papers) is free, leads to generous returns. In 2011 Elsevier, a large Dutch publisher, made a profit of £768m on revenues of £2.06 billion—a margin of 37%. Indeed, Elsevier’s profits are thought so egregious by many people that 12,000 researchers have signed up to a boycott of the company’s journals.

more
http://www.economist.com/node/21559317

I'll see your Joe Bastardi and raise you the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.


Quote:

The globally-averaged temperature for June 2012 marked the fourth warmest June since record keeping began in 1880. It also marks the 36th consecutive June and 328th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201206.gif

MOTR wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 6:26am:

I'll see your Joe Bastardi and raise you the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Quote: The globally-averaged temperature for June 2012 marked the fourth warmest June since record keeping began in 1880. It also marks the 36th consecutive June and 328th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201206.gif

Thats not from the data fudgers is it. The ones that cool the past and warm the future? Is this the homogenised data (the data peer-reviewed to have issues of bad bias)?

Progs probably thinks Nasa is making up this too....

Greenland melts before nasa's eyes.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/greenland-melts-before-nasas-eyes-20120725-22qtb.html

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 9:04am:

Progs probably thinks Nasa is making up this too.... Greenland melts before nasa's eyes. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/greenland-melts-before-nasas-eyes-20120725-22qtb.html

Nothing wrong with that as it is a 150yr event but I have seen the word 'unprecedented' used which is just propaganda, scaremongering.

deleted

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 11:02am:

deleted

I would still like to see how the melt was possible with outside temps below zero, unless someone has the temp data I havent seen for this top layer melt.

I have a theory what is going on but will not share. Suffice to say, keep satellite images of the melt, raw temp data, webcam images of the ground and compare to the next melt which will probably happen with 1 - 2 years (the actual 150yr melt).

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 11:02am: deleted I would still like to see how the melt was possible with outside temps below zero, unless someone has the temp data I havent seen for this top layer melt. I have a theory what is going on but will not share.

You wont share because you'll be laughed at ?

Are you a budding climate scientist now.  What are your credentials ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 11:52am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 11:06am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 11:02am: deleted I would still like to see how the melt was possible with outside temps below zero, unless someone has the temp data I havent seen for this top layer melt. I have a theory what is going on but will not share. You wont share because you'll be laughed at ? Are you a budding climate scientist now.  What are your credentials ?

No I will not share because I am too uncertain at this stage, but the best thing to do for now is to keep an eye on the items I suggested.

Some info about the poor workings of the IPCC and why not to use them as your first link or have your readers skip your post all togehter

Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise speaks to IPA members in Melbourne about the flaws she has discovered in IPCC reports.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGPqV_Fwo4Q

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 11:02am: deleted I would still like to see how the melt was possible with outside temps below zero, unless someone has the temp data I havent seen for this top layer melt. I have a theory what is going on but will not share. Suffice to say, keep satellite images of the melt, raw temp data, webcam images of the ground and compare to the next melt which will probably happen with 1 - 2 years (the actual 150yr melt).

So you're expecting another one in a few years time. Will that be the next 150yr melt arriving early?

MOTR wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 7:43pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 11:06am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 11:02am: deleted I would still like to see how the melt was possible with outside temps below zero, unless someone has the temp data I havent seen for this top layer melt. I have a theory what is going on but will not share. Suffice to say, keep satellite images of the melt, raw temp data, webcam images of the ground and compare to the next melt which will probably happen with 1 - 2 years (the actual 150yr melt). So you're expecting another one in a few years time. Will that be the next 150yr melt arriving early?

No.

It would seem, again, the only place to get some real climate science information is WUWT


UPDATE: Andrew Revkin at NYT’s Dot Earth got a response from NASA and agrees this is a mess,  writing in “Unprecedented’ Greenland Surface Melt – Every 150 Years?”
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/unprecedented-greenland-surface-melt-every-150-years/

The flow of news releases and background science content from NASA is generally excellent, but the space agency badly blew it earlier this week with this headline, which has now reverberated around the Web: “Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt.”

He adds this note from NASA, also citing Keegan et al. (2011):


Updated | Lora Koenig of NASA just sent this note providing the reference underlying her comment about past summer melting episodes at the summit (the spot on the giant ice sheet least vulnerable to melting):

The study I am citing is Alley and Anandakrishnan, 1995, “Variations in melt-layer frequency in the GISP2 ice core: implications for Holocene summer temperatures in central Greenland” published in the Annals of Glaciology for establishing the long-term frequency of melt events at Summit , Greenland. And Clausen et al., 1988 Glaciological Investigations in the Crete area, Central Greenland: A search for a new deep-drilling site also published in Annals of Glaciology for an early reference to the 1889 melt event though as mentioned in the press release Kaitlin Keegan and her advisor Mary Albert at Dartmouth University have more recent research on this event and please contact them for additional specific information.

My comment shows that melt events have occurred at Summit in the past and I have quoted the longest-term average frequency of ~150 years (exactly 153 from the paper) over the past 10,000. Since this is an ice core record that frequency is for the location of Summit only. The frequency ranges from ~80 to 250 years over different sections of the GISP2 ice core, please see the paper for specifics.

UPDATE2: I loved Revkin’s skewering of Joe Romm on his Tumblr blog. Revkin writes:

Joe Romm in full thought-police mode, labeling NASA glaciologist’s statement of scientific fact and uncertainty on Greenland surface melt episode “scientific reticence.” This even though Romm excerpts a line explaining that such events are etched in Greenland’s ice-core record roughly every 150 years:


“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

That statement is a classic example of what James Hansen called “scientific reticence.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/25/paging-aps-seth-borenstein-hey-seth-wheres-the-beef/

Because there is evidence of rapid melts in the past it is impossible at this stage to say conclusively that this melt is a product of global warming. There is a good chance it is, but perhaps it isn't. Let's keep a look out for the next one, which we know will be much sooner than 150 years.

All over the world these rare weather events are happening more frequently. It is about time we started to connect the dots.

MOTR wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 11:52pm:

Because there is evidence of rapid melts in the past it is impossible at this stage to say conclusively that this melt is a product of global warming. There is a good chance it is, but perhaps it isn't. Let's keep a look out for the next one, which we know will be much sooner than 150 years. All over the world these rare weather events are happening more frequently. It is about time we started to connect the dots.

So you think 150 year event is rare. How far back and how many times should it happen to become not rare in your book?

NASA is a failed institution. The NASA astronauts and scientists were right asking for NASA to stick with the science and not become a political failure like IPCC.

First time it's happened in my lifetime. That's pretty rare in my book. If something that's been happening very 150 years starts occurring every few years, I'd say there has been a worrisome shift.

When this happens I won't be expecting you to be listening to Lora Koenig.

MOTR wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 12:32am:

First time it's happened in my lifetime. That's pretty rare in my book. If something that's been happening very 150 years starts occurring every few years, I'd say there has been a worrisome shift. When this happens I won't be expecting you to be listening to Lora Koenig.

Well I dont expect you scaremongers to stop using the words rare, unprecedented for something that is as regular as you having to go potty.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 12:34am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 12:32am: First time it's happened in my lifetime. That's pretty rare in my book. If something that's been happening very 150 years starts occurring every few years, I'd say there has been a worrisome shift. When this happens I won't be expecting you to be listening to Lora Koenig. Well I dont expect you scaremongers to stop using the words rare, unprecedented for something that is as regular as you having to go potty.

Gee, progs, if it's like that, a little roughage probably wouldn't go astray.

Here is another brilliant op-ed piece written by Bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhCY-3XnqS0&sns=em

Keep calm and carry on.
Bill McKibben

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-link-between-climate-change-and-joplin-tornadoes-never/2011/05/23/AFrVC49G_story.html


Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections. When you see pictures of rubble like this week’s shots from Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala., or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that (which, together, comprised the most active April for tornadoes in U.S. history). No, that doesn’t mean a thing.

It is far better to think of these as isolated, unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advisable to try to connect them in your mind with, say, the fires burning across Texas — fires that have burned more of America at this point this year than any wildfires have in previous years. Texas, and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier than they’ve ever been — the drought is worse than that of the Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if they’re somehow connected.

If you did wonder, you see, you would also have to wonder about whether this year’s record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest — resulting in record flooding along the Mississippi — could somehow be related. And then you might find your thoughts wandering to, oh, global warming, and to the fact that climatologists have been predicting for years that as we flood the atmosphere with carbon we will also start both drying and flooding the planet, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold air.

It’s far smarter to repeat to yourself the comforting mantra that no single weather event can ever be directly tied to climate change. There have been tornadoes before, and floods — that’s the important thing. Just be careful to make sure you don’t let yourself wonder why all these record-breaking events are happening in such proximity — that is, why there have been unprecedented megafloods in Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan in the past year. Why it’s just now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of years. No, better to focus on the immediate casualties, watch the videotape from the store cameras as the shelves are blown over. Look at the news anchorman standing in his waders in the rising river as the water approaches his chest.

Because if you asked yourself what it meant that the Amazon has just come through its second hundred-year drought in the past five years, or that the pine forests across the western part of this continent have been obliterated by a beetle in the past decade — well, you might have to ask other questions. Such as: Should President Obama really just have opened a huge swath of Wyoming to new coal mining? Should Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sign a permit this summer allowing a huge new pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta? You might also have to ask yourself: Do we have a bigger problem than $4-a-gallon gasoline?

Better to join with the U.S. House of Representatives, which voted 240 to 184 this spring to defeat a resolution saying simply that “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.” Propose your own physics; ignore physics altogether. Just don’t start asking yourself whether there might be some relation among last year’s failed grain harvest from the Russian heat wave, and Queensland’s failed grain harvest from its record flood, and France’s and Germany’s current drought-related crop failures, and the death of the winter wheat crop in Texas, and the inability of Midwestern farmers to get corn planted in their sodden fields. Surely the record food prices are just freak outliers, not signs of anything systemic.

It’s very important to stay calm. If you got upset about any of this, you might forget how important it is not to disrupt the record profits of our fossil fuel companies. If worst ever did come to worst, it’s reassuring to remember what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told the Environmental Protection Agency in a recent filing: that there’s no need to worry because “populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.” I’m pretty sure that’s what residents are telling themselves in Joplin today.

Bill McKibben is founder of the global climate campaign 350.org and a distinguished scholar at Middlebury College in Vermont.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 10:56am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:04am: Progs probably thinks Nasa is making up this too.... Greenland melts before nasa's eyes. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/greenland-melts-before-nasas-eyes-20120725-22qtb.html Nothing wrong with that as it is a 150yr event but I have seen the word 'unprecedented' used which is just propaganda, scaremongering.

lol, ABBOTT ABBOTT ABBOTT ABBOTT   ::) ::)

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 10:56am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:04am: Progs probably thinks Nasa is making up this too.... Greenland melts before nasa's eyes. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/greenland-melts-before-nasas-eyes-20120725-22qtb.html Nothing wrong with that as it is a 150yr event but I have seen the word 'unprecedented' used which is just propaganda, scaremongering.

PROGS HAS JUST ADMITTED THAT ANYONE USING THE WORD 'UNPRECEDENTED' IS GUILTY OF RENDERING PROPAGANDA!

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 11:02am: deleted I would still like to see how the melt was possible with outside temps below zero, unless someone has the temp data I havent seen for this top layer melt. I have a theory what is going on but will not share. Suffice to say, keep satellite images of the melt, raw temp data, webcam images of the ground and compare to the next melt which will probably happen with 1 - 2 years (the actual 150yr melt).

PROGS IS WORRIED, LOL!!  :D :D :D :D

THE FAMOUS FIVE STAGES OF DYING,AS TOLD BY BY ELIZABETH KUBLER ROSS, WILL BE SEEN IN PROGS NEXT FEW POSTS ME PREDICTS!
  ;D ;D ;D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 3:21pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 10:56am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:04am: Progs probably thinks Nasa is making up this too.... Greenland melts before nasa's eyes. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/greenland-melts-before-nasas-eyes-20120725-22qtb.html Nothing wrong with that as it is a 150yr event but I have seen the word 'unprecedented' used which is just propaganda, scaremongering. PROGS HAS JUST ADMITTED THAT ANYONE USING THE WORD 'UNPRECEDENTED' IS GUILTY OF RENDERING PROPAGANDA!

wow, you are sooo goood. lol

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 12:00pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 11:52am: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 11:06am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 11:02am: deleted I would still like to see how the melt was possible with outside temps below zero, unless someone has the temp data I havent seen for this top layer melt. I have a theory what is going on but will not share. You wont share because you'll be laughed at ? Are you a budding climate scientist now.  What are your credentials ? No I will not share because I am too uncertain at this stage, but the best thing to do for now is to keep an eye on the items I suggested.

UNCERTAINTY IS NOT A REAL CONCEPT IS IT???

BUT BUT BUT I SMOKE TIGER PRAWNS AND CRAYFISH WITH DADDYKINS,... I DEMAND CERTAINTY OF MY ETERNAL FUTURE COMFORT WHERE I CAN SAY I'M PRETTIER AND SEXIER THAN A BROWN PERSON!!

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 10:56am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:04am: Progs probably thinks Nasa is making up this too.... Greenland melts before nasa's eyes. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/greenland-melts-before-nasas-eyes-20120725-22qtb.html Nothing wrong with that as it is a 150yr event but I have seen the word 'unprecedented' used which is just propaganda, scaremongering. PROGS HAS JUST ADMITTED THAT ANYONE USING THE WORD 'UNPRECEDENTED' IS GUILTY OF RENDERING PROPAGANDA! wow, you are sooo goood. lol

YOU GOT NOTHING ON ME FELLA AND EVERY POSTER HERE KNOWS IT!!  :-*

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 12:00pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 11:52am: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 11:06am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 11:02am: deleted I would still like to see how the melt was possible with outside temps below zero, unless someone has the temp data I havent seen for this top layer melt. I have a theory what is going on but will not share. You wont share because you'll be laughed at ? Are you a budding climate scientist now.  What are your credentials ? No I will not share because I am too uncertain at this stage, but the best thing to do for now is to keep an eye on the items I suggested. UNCERTAINTY IS NOT A REAL CONCEPT IS IT??? BUT BUT BUT I SMOKE TIGER PRAWNS AND CRAYFISH WITH DADDYKINS,... I DEMAND CERTAINTY OF MY ETERNAL FUTURE COMFORT WHERE I CAN SAY I'M PRETTIER AND SEXIER THAN A BROWN PERSON!!

If that is your wish, then who are we to deny it. Just try to keep it in the home with your daddicans

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 3:27pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:26pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 10:56am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:04am: Progs probably thinks Nasa is making up this too.... Greenland melts before nasa's eyes. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/greenland-melts-before-nasas-eyes-20120725-22qtb.html Nothing wrong with that as it is a 150yr event but I have seen the word 'unprecedented' used which is just propaganda, scaremongering. PROGS HAS JUST ADMITTED THAT ANYONE USING THE WORD 'UNPRECEDENTED' IS GUILTY OF RENDERING PROPAGANDA! wow, you are sooo goood. lol YOU GOT NOTHING ON ME FELLA AND EVERY POSTER HERE KNOWS IT!!  :-*

8-)

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 3:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:27pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:26pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 10:56am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:04am: Progs probably thinks Nasa is making up this too.... Greenland melts before nasa's eyes. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/greenland-melts-before-nasas-eyes-20120725-22qtb.html Nothing wrong with that as it is a 150yr event but I have seen the word 'unprecedented' used which is just propaganda, scaremongering. PROGS HAS JUST ADMITTED THAT ANYONE USING THE WORD 'UNPRECEDENTED' IS GUILTY OF RENDERING PROPAGANDA! wow, you are sooo goood. lol YOU GOT NOTHING ON ME FELLA AND EVERY POSTER HERE KNOWS IT!!  :-* 8-)

progs can't look his kids in the eye!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 3:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:28pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:27pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:26pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 10:56am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:04am: Progs probably thinks Nasa is making up this too.... Greenland melts before nasa's eyes. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/greenland-melts-before-nasas-eyes-20120725-22qtb.html Nothing wrong with that as it is a 150yr event but I have seen the word 'unprecedented' used which is just propaganda, scaremongering. PROGS HAS JUST ADMITTED THAT ANYONE USING THE WORD 'UNPRECEDENTED' IS GUILTY OF RENDERING PROPAGANDA! wow, you are sooo goood. lol YOU GOT NOTHING ON ME FELLA AND EVERY POSTER HERE KNOWS IT!!  :-* 8-) progs can't look his kids in the eye!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I dont look at the eye you do.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 3:37pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:35pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:28pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:27pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:26pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 10:56am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:04am: Progs probably thinks Nasa is making up this too.... Greenland melts before nasa's eyes. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/greenland-melts-before-nasas-eyes-20120725-22qtb.html Nothing wrong with that as it is a 150yr event but I have seen the word 'unprecedented' used which is just propaganda, scaremongering. PROGS HAS JUST ADMITTED THAT ANYONE USING THE WORD 'UNPRECEDENTED' IS GUILTY OF RENDERING PROPAGANDA! wow, you are sooo goood. lol YOU GOT NOTHING ON ME FELLA AND EVERY POSTER HERE KNOWS IT!!  :-* 8-) progs can't look his kids in the eye!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I dont look at the eye you do.

progs is so embarrassed he is resorting to kiddie-fiddler jokes!!
  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 3:39pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:37pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:35pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:28pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:27pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:26pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 3:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 10:56am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:04am: Progs probably thinks Nasa is making up this too.... Greenland melts before nasa's eyes. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/greenland-melts-before-nasas-eyes-20120725-22qtb.html Nothing wrong with that as it is a 150yr event but I have seen the word 'unprecedented' used which is just propaganda, scaremongering. PROGS HAS JUST ADMITTED THAT ANYONE USING THE WORD 'UNPRECEDENTED' IS GUILTY OF RENDERING PROPAGANDA! wow, you are sooo goood. lol YOU GOT NOTHING ON ME FELLA AND EVERY POSTER HERE KNOWS IT!!  :-* 8-) progs can't look his kids in the eye!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I dont look at the eye you do. progs is so embarrassed he is resorting to kiddie-fiddler jokes!!   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

it was a joke... oh ok

did you just hack onto my account or????????????  ::)

For those of you who are interested, here is NASA's Tom Wagner putting the melt into perspective. In isolation a one off melt might not tell us much, but how about we step back a bit and look at the bigger picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IjvLavB23Q&sns=em

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:33am:

For those of you who are interested, here is NASA's Tom Wagner putting the melt into perspective. In isolation a one off melt might not tell us much, but how about we step back a bit and look at the bigger picture. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IjvLavB23Q&sns=em

Can we have those NASA scientists back, asking NASA to keep to the science like they used to and to stop becoming a joke, just like the political and pathetic IPCC.

The only people claiming NASA scientists are a joke are people who believe climate science is some sort of witchcraft and those paid to make people like you think climate science is some sort of witchcraft.

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 8:32am:

The only people claiming NASA scientists are a joke are people who believe climate science is some sort of witchcraft and those paid to make people like you think climate science is some sort of witchcraft.

You think NASA astronauts and scientists think that. Bit rich of a claim.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 8:37am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 8:32am: The only people claiming NASA scientists are a joke are people who believe climate science is some sort of witchcraft and those paid to make people like you think climate science is some sort of witchcraft. You think NASA astronauts and scientists think that. Bit rich of a claim.

Are you talking about Harrison Schmitt, ex-astronaut and now board member at the Oil and Tobacco shilling Heartland Institute. I'll think you'll find he belongs to the second group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrxE3uwHECs&sns=em

Now play fair, progs, otherwise I'll be forced to bring out the denominator.

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 8:58am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 8:37am: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 8:32am: The only people claiming NASA scientists are a joke are people who believe climate science is some sort of witchcraft and those paid to make people like you think climate science is some sort of witchcraft. You think NASA astronauts and scientists think that. Bit rich of a claim. Are you talking about Harrison Schmitt, ex-astronaut and now board member at the Oil and Tobacco shilling Heartland Institute. I'll think you'll find he belongs to the second group. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrxE3uwHECs&sns=em Now play fair, progs, otherwise I'll be forced to bring out the denominator.

Those propaganda videos you keep showing dont do much for your cred either.

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 8:58am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 8:37am: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 8:32am: The only people claiming NASA scientists are a joke are people who believe climate science is some sort of witchcraft and those paid to make people like you think climate science is some sort of witchcraft. You think NASA astronauts and scientists think that. Bit rich of a claim. Are you talking about Harrison Schmitt, ex-astronaut and now board member at the Oil and Tobacco shilling Heartland Institute. I'll think you'll find he belongs to the second group. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrxE3uwHECs&sns=em Now play fair, progs, otherwise I'll be forced to bring out the denominator.

Cherry picking????
Pot...kettle...

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2010/antarctic_icecoreT.gif

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:38am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 8:58am: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 8:37am: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 8:32am: The only people claiming NASA scientists are a joke are people who believe climate science is some sort of witchcraft and those paid to make people like you think climate science is some sort of witchcraft. You think NASA astronauts and scientists think that. Bit rich of a claim. Are you talking about Harrison Schmitt, ex-astronaut and now board member at the Oil and Tobacco shilling Heartland Institute. I'll think you'll find he belongs to the second group. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrxE3uwHECs&sns=em Now play fair, progs, otherwise I'll be forced to bring out the denominator. Those propaganda videos you keep showing dont do much for your cred either.

What is the difference between a video and an article. If there was information in the video that I believed was inaccurate I wouldn't post it. What bits of the video do you disagree with?

Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted.

Good to see the good side of NASA are still on the case.


Will They Come?

Concerned with statements made by current NASA officials that the science of climate change is settled and that it is now certain that man-made CO2 will result in catastrophic global warming, a group of former NASA scientists have formed a group to review the basis of such statements. Calling themselves the “Right Climate Stuff” team, they have begun inviting experts from both sides of the almost non-existent public debate concerning the human impact on global climate change to present their data and conclusions. But will they come?


The Right Climate Stuff (RCS) team’s objective is to review the data and computer models being used by the often alarmist proponents of man-made climate change as well as historical reconstructions relied upon by scientists questioning whether the human impact on climate is significant or insignificant compared with natural climate drivers. To date, a number of invitations have been sent and some preliminary reviews have been held.


As an unpaid volunteer group with no political agendas or current ties to the fossil fuel industry, the RCS team offers an excellent opportunity for the various groups or individuals to defend their positions and data on the impact of man-made CO2 on the climate. For scientists who have declared the science is settled now face flagging public support and trust, this will provide an opportunity to drive that point home before an objective interdisciplinary team of reputable scientists. For skeptical scientists, this evaluation process will offer a rare public opportunity to make their case in an objective forum.


http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/11296/Will-They-Come

Collectively, how many hours have these former NASA employees spent researching our climate. What makes them more special than the thousands of employees currently working for NASA.

If they have something substantive how about they stump up a few arguments. Schmitt had a go but it didn't take long to work out he didn't really have a clue.

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56am:

Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted.

I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/....
Ignorant twat.

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56am: Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted. I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/.... Ignorant twat.

What I discern from the graph is that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

What do you discern from it?

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56am: Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted. I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/.... Ignorant twat.

No need to be rude. I'm quite certain I can do all those things, how about you have a go a putting your argument into words.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 1:18pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56am: Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted. I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/.... Ignorant twat. What I discern from the graph is that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature. What do you discern from it?

Really...then you can tell which of the two come first.

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 2:39pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 1:18pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56am: Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted. I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/.... Ignorant twat. No need to be rude. I'm quite certain I can do all those things, how about you have a go a putting your argument into words.

Drop the lecturing, patronizing tone then.

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 2:09pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 1:18pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56am: Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted. I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/.... Ignorant twat. What I discern from the graph is that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature. What do you discern from it? Really...then you can tell which of the two come first.

If you asked a climate scientist they would tell you the temperature increase came first.

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 5:23pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 2:39pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 1:18pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56am: Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted. I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/.... Ignorant twat. No need to be rude. I'm quite certain I can do all those things, how about you have a go a putting your argument into words. Drop the lecturing, patronizing tone then.

How about you explain how that graph represents cherry picking. And if you have a problem with cherry picking you must admit Schmidt has very little credibility.

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:41pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 5:18pm: Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 2:09pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 1:18pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56am: Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted. I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/.... Ignorant twat. What I discern from the graph is that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature. What do you discern from it? Really...then you can tell which of the two come first. If you asked a climate scientist they would tell you the temperature increase came first.

Exactly.

Its time we cracked down on international trade with stiff import duties and tariffs then isn't it./... 8-)

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:56pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:41pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 5:18pm: Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 2:09pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 1:18pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56am: Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted. I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/.... Ignorant twat. What I discern from the graph is that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature. What do you discern from it? Really...then you can tell which of the two come first. If you asked a climate scientist they would tell you the temperature increase came first. Exactly.

So what is your point.

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 9:49pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 5:23pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 2:39pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 1:18pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56am: Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted. I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/.... Ignorant twat. No need to be rude. I'm quite certain I can do all those things, how about you have a go a putting your argument into words. Drop the lecturing, patronizing tone then. How about you explain how that graph represents cherry picking. And if you have a problem with cherry picking you must admit Schmidt has very little credibility.

I have a problem with anyone presenting a geological timescale eyeblink to purport to prove a "point" that is not only not supported but contradicted by the known record when you look at long term trends and patterns.

So what you are saying is that because of the time frame AGW is impossible to prove. That's awkward if the climate scientists are right and AGW is actualy happening.

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 10:07pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:41pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 5:18pm: Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 2:09pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 1:18pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56am: Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted. I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/.... Ignorant twat. What I discern from the graph is that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature. What do you discern from it? Really...then you can tell which of the two come first. If you asked a climate scientist they would tell you the temperature increase came first. Exactly. So what is your point.

So temperature rise comes first and is followed some time later by the rise in CO2 that "caused" it. Is that your point? 

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 10:28pm:

So what you are saying is that because of the time frame AGW is impossible to prove. That's awkward if the climate scientists are right and AGW is actualy happening.

Also awkward if they're wrong. I'm not saying it's impossible to prove either but it requires a bit more effort than pointing to a thermometer and saying that any rise is attributable to anthropogenic sources where during the course of the last half million years or so it has been hotter with no deforestation and no fossil fuel use on several occasions. These spikes are not explained well by earth's orbital variation. And by spike they are invariably followed by steep declines in temperatures often with CO2 still high and increasing.
It does not matter in any case because despite anything Australia does fossil fuel use will increase on a global scale. So we can argue as long as we like it will change nothing.

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 10:07pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:41pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 5:18pm: Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 2:09pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 1:18pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56am: Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted. I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/.... Ignorant twat. What I discern from the graph is that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature. What do you discern from it? Really...then you can tell which of the two come first. If you asked a climate scientist they would tell you the temperature increase came first. Exactly. So what is your point. So temperature rise comes first and is followed some time later by the rise in CO2 that "caused" it. Is that your point?

It depends on the point of time you are talking about. There is no doubt CO2 has warming properties. Our satellites have measured a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. In the past changes in atmospheric CO2 have largely been determined by changes in global temperature. Generally orbital forcings have pushed up northern hemisphere temperatures reducing the albedo effect and releasing trapped greenhouse gases from the thawing Arctic tundra. These feedback effects explain why the warming in the past was global in nature. So in the past temperature led CO2 which led to further warming then more CO2 and so on.

Today, we are responsible for kick starting this warming process. Nature doesnt care who put the extra CO2 into the atmosphere, it just responds as it always has.

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:

So temperature rise comes first and is followed some time later by the rise in CO2 that "caused" it. Is that your point?

Well to follow your point to its logical conclusion then you must believe that it is a change in temperature that caused us to start digging billions of tonnes of carbon up and burning it to release the CO2 back into the atmosphere.

So, clearly, that hasn't happened which suggests sometimes things OTHER than slight changes in temperature can cause the initial outgas of CO2 - and if there is one thing we CAN clearly discern from the graph that you posted it is that CO2 amplifies warming.

So unless you ARE suggesting that a temperature change caused us to dig up coal and oil then you have to acknowledge that CO2 rises sometimes do lead temperature changes and that in this instance human activity has been the catalyst for an outgassng of CO2 that will result in significant warming. Either that or you deny the clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and temperature during past climatic changes.

MOTR wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 6:54am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 11:06pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 10:07pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:41pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 5:18pm: Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 2:09pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 1:18pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 9:56am: Tonegunman1, how about you provide some context to the graph you've just posted. I forgot you have trouble reading/understanding/comprehending/evaluating/discerning/.... Ignorant twat. What I discern from the graph is that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature. What do you discern from it? Really...then you can tell which of the two come first. If you asked a climate scientist they would tell you the temperature increase came first. Exactly. So what is your point. So temperature rise comes first and is followed some time later by the rise in CO2 that "caused" it. Is that your point?  It depends on the point of time you are talking about. There is no doubt CO2 has warming properties. Our satellites have measured a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. In the past changes in atmospheric CO2 have largely been determined by changes in global temperature. Generally orbital forcings have pushed up northern hemisphere temperatures reducing the albedo effect and releasing trapped greenhouse gases from the thawing Arctic tundra. These feedback effects explain why the warming in the past was global in nature. So in the past temperature led CO2 which led to further warming then more CO2 and so on. Today, we are responsible for kick starting this warming process. Nature doesnt care who put the extra CO2 into the atmosphere, it just responds as it always has.

Thank you for a considered reply.
The first part you make the point that satellite measurement of reductions in the radiation spectrum associated with CO2 and CH4 and this has one effect to the extent that higher temperatures can cause release of these into the atmosphere through melting. Higher water temperatures also hold less gas in solution. Not sure what you are getting at with line about explaining why warming in the past was global in nature. You seem to be implying that warming now is not global.  Anyway we can agree that increasing temperature can drive more CO2 into the atmosphere so we have an associated effect.  It is not the case that there is here a pure cause and effect although there may be some contribution of indeterminate magnitude. This is overcome at various points in any case with despite high and increasing CO2 we have a climate that begins to rapidly cool.We are here in the realm of what has in the past been natural.
If the process has been "kick started" and causation is purely speculation without separating out the proportional anthropogenic contribution, it will run to it's logical conclusion whatever that is and there can be no measures to prevent it.

I'm not implying that warming today is not global in nature. I'm pointing out the mechanism through which an increase in the northern hemisphere temperatures spread to the southern hemisphere. I was assuming you watched the video I posted earlier.

Secondly, we certainly can't stop the warming already in the system. What we can do is not start the next cycle. If we keep on increasing atmospheric CO2 we will continue to increase the terminal temperature.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 10:06am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 11:06pm: So temperature rise comes first and is followed some time later by the rise in CO2 that "caused" it. Is that your point?  Well to follow your point to its logical conclusion then you must believe that it is a change in temperature that caused us to start digging billions of tonnes of carbon up and burning it to release the CO2 back into the atmosphere. So, clearly, that hasn't happened which suggests sometimes things OTHER than slight changes in temperature can cause the initial outgas of CO2 - and if there is one thing we CAN clearly discern from the graph that you posted it is that CO2 amplifies warming. So unless you ARE suggesting that a temperature change caused us to dig up coal and oil then you have to acknowledge that CO2 rises sometimes do lead temperature changes and that in this instance human activity has been the catalyst for an outgassng of CO2 that will result in significant warming. Either that or you deny the clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and temperature during past climatic changes.

1. To follow your post to it's logical conclusion you're an utter fukwit.

2. Of course there are other things apart from temperature that cause CO2 to be released. The graph however does not show that CO2 amplifies warming otherwise temperature would not fall, it shows an association...see point 1.

3. Your last paragraph...see point 1.

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 3:55pm:

The graph however does not show that CO2 amplifies warming otherwise temperature would not fall, it shows an association...

It shows a correlation. After about 600-800 years CO2 overtakes temperature. And temperatures fall again because the Earth's orbit shifts. That's the other incredibly clear correlation to that graph, the peaks and troughs of the Milankovitch Cycle.

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 3:55pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 29th, 2012 at 10:06am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 11:06pm: So temperature rise comes first and is followed some time later by the rise in CO2 that "caused" it. Is that your point?  Well to follow your point to its logical conclusion then you must believe that it is a change in temperature that caused us to start digging billions of tonnes of carbon up and burning it to release the CO2 back into the atmosphere. So, clearly, that hasn't happened which suggests sometimes things OTHER than slight changes in temperature can cause the initial outgas of CO2 - and if there is one thing we CAN clearly discern from the graph that you posted it is that CO2 amplifies warming. So unless you ARE suggesting that a temperature change caused us to dig up coal and oil then you have to acknowledge that CO2 rises sometimes do lead temperature changes and that in this instance human activity has been the catalyst for an outgassng of CO2 that will result in significant warming. Either that or you deny the clear and undeniable correlation between CO2 and temperature during past climatic changes. 1. To follow your post to it's logical conclusion you're an utter fukwit. 2. Of course there are other things apart from temperature that cause CO2 to be released. The graph however does not show that CO2 amplifies warming otherwise temperature would not fall, it shows an association...see point 1. 3. Your last paragraph...see point 1.

Your number 2 is a good point.

Think about this

A driver drives the temperature up. This same driver goes away and drives the temperature down.

There is a climb up, a peak, a drop, all looking pretty equal on the up and on the down.

If co2 were to make the up go up higher.

Why then does the down slide copy the up slide. There is a lag in co2 going to its peak (200 - 800 years), but yet we see no lag in cooling whatsoever.

The up and down slopes should be different. We see no lagged cooling. Obviously I have not done calculation and do not have any numbers, but that is just a thought to look at, at a later date.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 6:47pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 29th, 2012 at 3:55pm: The graph however does not show that CO2 amplifies warming otherwise temperature would not fall, it shows an association... It shows a correlation. After about 600-800 years CO2 overtakes temperature. And temperatures fall again because the Earth's orbit shifts. That's the other incredibly clear correlation to that graph, the peaks and troughs of the Milankovitch Cycle.

It's an association. And on the longer timescale even this is absent, Cambrian up to 7000ppm, Devonian ave about 3000ppm, Jurassic about 1800ppm, Cretaceous about 1200ppm and all without runaway greenhouse and far from devoid of life.
On average over the last 450,000 years or so CO2 lagged temperature increase by about 800 years.
Sure the Milankovich cycles explain everything if you are willfully blind to the problems with this hypothesis. 

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 9:03pm:

It's an association. And on the longer timescale even this is absent, Cambrian up to 7000ppm, Devonian ave about 3000ppm, Jurassic about 1800ppm, Cretaceous about 1200ppm and all without runaway greenhouse and far from devoid of life.

That's a strawman. No one of any consequence has claimed that AGW would cause a runaway greenhouse effect and/or leave the planet devoid of life. There is a difference between 'not suitable for human civilisation' and 'devoid of life'.


Quote:

On average over the last 450,000 years or so CO2 lagged temperature increase by about 800 years. Sure the Milankovich cycles explain everything if you are willfully blind to the problems with this hypothesis.

Problems? Such as?

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 7:18pm:

The up and down slopes should be different. We see no lagged cooling. Obviously I have not done calculation and do not have any numbers, but that is just a thought to look at, at a later date.

Because clearly you are brighter than the people who have done the calculations and have thought of something brilliant that those dimwits who make it their life's work to understand such things would never have considered. It really is reassuring to have you around!  ;D

Oh, and for the record, there IS a very clear lag in the downside of the Vostock ice core data - temperatures drop suddenly then about 1000 years later, as CO2 begins to get trapped in the cooling oceans, levels decline in correlation with the previous temperature drop.

/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 9:36pm:

Oh, and for the record, there IS a very clear lag in the downside of the Vostock ice core data - temperatures drop suddenly then about 1000 years later, as CO2 begins to get trapped in the cooling oceans, levels decline in correlation with the previous temperature

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

yES, the liberal-voting-silver-spooner-tryhard brigade are beginning to realise that they will have to look their children in the eye one day and admit they voted for short term greed and not their childrens childrens childrens future!

  :-[

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 9:20pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 29th, 2012 at 9:03pm: It's an association. And on the longer timescale even this is absent, Cambrian up to 7000ppm, Devonian ave about 3000ppm, Jurassic about 1800ppm, Cretaceous about 1200ppm and all without runaway greenhouse and far from devoid of life. That's a strawman. No one of any consequence has claimed that AGW would cause a runaway greenhouse effect and/or leave the planet devoid of life. There is a difference between 'not suitable for human civilisation' and 'devoid of life'.

Strawman?...but where oh where is your clear correlation between CO2 and temperature that would have the dinosaurs cooking like KFC chickens?
And your measure of environmental harm is apparently purely anthropogenic...that's interesting.


Quote:

[QUOTE]On average over the last 450,000 years or so CO2 lagged temperature increase by about 800 years. Sure the Milankovich cycles explain everything if you are willfully blind to the problems with this hypothesis.

Problems? Such as?
[/quote]

I dunno....little things like magnitude of effects and effects preceding causation.
And otherwise it has all the precision of reading sheep's intestines.
Take 2 different Milankovichites interpreting the same observations. Imbrie has cooling beginning 6K years ago and going for the next 23K years.
While Berger and Loutre have warm climate for the next 50K years.
Quite some little margin of error you have there.
I don't know how people are supposed to compete with such high standards?
But I gave it a shot re tobacco and determined right off the bat that a predisposition to lung cancer causes smoking.
See point 1.