A mate was telling me there was a protest being organised to highlight the failure of the press to report the Arctic melt. He wasn't sure who was organising it but he thought it was meant to coincide with the expected minimum. Can anyone tell me where I need to be?

MOTR wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 9:37pm:

A mate was telling me there was a protest being organised to highlight the failure of the press to report the Arctic melt. He wasn't sure who was organising it but he thought it was meant to coincide with the expected minimum. Can anyone tell me where I need to be?

It's just a rumour, mate, like the rest of the AGW caper. Kids talking to other kids.

Soren wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 9:40pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:37pm: A mate was telling me there was a protest being organised to highlight the failure of the press to report the Arctic melt. He wasn't sure who was organising it but he thought it was meant to coincide with the expected minimum. Can anyone tell me where I need to be? It's just a rumour, mate, like the rest of the AGW caper. Kids talking to other kids.

I don't get how you can be so dismissive of the scientific consensus.

Why are you so convinced our scientists are getting it wrong?

MOTR wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 9:43pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:40pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:37pm: A mate was telling me there was a protest being organised to highlight the failure of the press to report the Arctic melt. He wasn't sure who was organising it but he thought it was meant to coincide with the expected minimum. Can anyone tell me where I need to be? It's just a rumour, mate, like the rest of the AGW caper. Kids talking to other kids. I don't get how you can be so dismissive of the scientific consensus. Why are you so convinced our scientists are getting it wrong?

A science degree is no inoculation against group-think.

Soren wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 10:34pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:43pm: Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:40pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:37pm: A mate was telling me there was a protest being organised to highlight the failure of the press to report the Arctic melt. He wasn't sure who was organising it but he thought it was meant to coincide with the expected minimum. Can anyone tell me where I need to be? It's just a rumour, mate, like the rest of the AGW caper. Kids talking to other kids. I don't get how you can be so dismissive of the scientific consensus. Why are you so convinced our scientists are getting it wrong? A science degree is no inoculation against group-think.

No.

Avoiding Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt is inoculation against group-think.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 10:51pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 10:34pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:43pm: Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:40pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:37pm: A mate was telling me there was a protest being organised to highlight the failure of the press to report the Arctic melt. He wasn't sure who was organising it but he thought it was meant to coincide with the expected minimum. Can anyone tell me where I need to be? It's just a rumour, mate, like the rest of the AGW caper. Kids talking to other kids. I don't get how you can be so dismissive of the scientific consensus. Why are you so convinced our scientists are getting it wrong? A science degree is no inoculation against group-think. No. Avoiding Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt is inoculation against group-think.

See what I mean, MOTR?  Rabbit thinks his clever. He is insinuating that Bolt and Jones cause 'denialism'.

If AGW boosters are so stupid about such a simple thing, how could you side with them in matters far, far more complex, such as the climate?

MOTR wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 9:43pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:40pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:37pm: A mate was telling me there was a protest being organised to highlight the failure of the press to report the Arctic melt. He wasn't sure who was organising it but he thought it was meant to coincide with the expected minimum. Can anyone tell me where I need to be? It's just a rumour, mate, like the rest of the AGW caper. Kids talking to other kids. I don't get how you can be so dismissive of the scientific consensus. Why are you so convinced our scientists are getting it wrong?

But science is not consensus, it's facts and evidence...and your pulling up short on these 2.   

Quote:

Entropy... "4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity. 5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society."

Fighting against inevitable decay and death is not rational...learn to live in the moment and enjoy the time you have which will be taken from you by death whether you like it or not.  Global Warming hysteria stems from an group existential fear of death...get religion or get over it.  Death walks beside you, it is your companion, you are worm food...quit thinking you can cheat it, tax it, bribe it... :) :)

namnugenot wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 11:02pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:43pm: Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:40pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:37pm: A mate was telling me there was a protest being organised to highlight the failure of the press to report the Arctic melt. He wasn't sure who was organising it but he thought it was meant to coincide with the expected minimum. Can anyone tell me where I need to be? It's just a rumour, mate, like the rest of the AGW caper. Kids talking to other kids. I don't get how you can be so dismissive of the scientific consensus. Why are you so convinced our scientists are getting it wrong? But science is not consensus, it's facts and evidence...and your pulling up short on these 2.

Which "facts and evidence" are you denying?

Are you denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Are you denying that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased significantly in recent decades?
Are you denying that the majority of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in anthropogenic?
Are you denying there has been a measured increase in the amount of downward longwave radiation in recent decades?
Are you denying there has been measured decrease in outgoing longwave radiation at the same wavelengths as those absorbed by CO2 in recent decades?
Are you denying there has been an observed increase in global temperature in recent decades?
Are you denying there has been an observed increase in sea level in recent decades?
Are you denying there has been a decrease in global glacial mass balance in recent decades?
Are you denying there has been a decrease in Arctic sea ice in recent decades?
Are you denying there has been a measured decrease in ocean pH in recent decades?

Which part of the mountain of "facts and evidence" that exist in the body of scientific literature are you trying to pretend does not exist?

Could you explain?

Prevailing wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 11:21pm:

[quote] Global Warming hysteria stems from an group existential fear of death.

No - it stems from over a century of empirical observations which support the theory that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature.

Denying will not make it go away.

You are nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated... :) :)

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 11:39pm:

Prevailing wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 11:21pm: [quote] Global Warming hysteria stems from an group existential fear of death. No - it stems from over a century of empirical observations which support the theory that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature. Denying will not make it go away.

You are describing entropy...deal with it, Entropy is a certainty we cannot affect or stop...order breaks down and deteriorates into disorder... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 11:50pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 11:39pm: Prevailing wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 11:21pm: [quote] Global Warming hysteria stems from an group existential fear of death. No - it stems from over a century of empirical observations which support the theory that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature. Denying will not make it go away. You are describing entropy...deal with it, Entropy is a certainty we cannot affect or stop...order breaks down and deteriorates into disorder... :) :)

No.  I haven't described entropy at all.

I described the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature.

Prevailing wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 11:46pm:

You are nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated... :) :)

Yes.  Absolutely correct - I am nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated.

What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:13am:

Prevailing wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 11:46pm: You are nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated... :) :) Yes.  Absolutely correct - I am nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated. What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature?

Everything deteriorates from order to disorder...measure it any way you like...leave a brand new car out in the elements for forty years and it will rust, deteriorate and begin to break down as the certain scientific law of Entropy dictates...it is unstoppable, the universe will one day contract in on itself into nothingness...the particles and substance of the universe are random, chaotic and we are a part of that and guilt doctrines cannot be ascribed to us unless you are trying to impose some psuedo religious trip on us... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:22am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:13am: Prevailing wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 11:46pm: You are nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated... :) :) Yes.  Absolutely correct - I am nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated. What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature? Everything deteriorates from order to disorder...measure it any way you like...leave a brand new car out in the elements for forty years and it will rust, deteriorate and begin to break down as the certain scientific law of Entropy dictates...it is unstoppable, the universe will one day contract in on itself into nothingness...the particles and substance of the universe are random, chaotic and we are a part of that and guilt doctrines cannot be ascribed to us unless you are trying to impose some psuedo religious trip on us... :) :)

What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:32am:

Prevailing wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:22am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:13am: Prevailing wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 11:46pm: You are nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated... :) :) Yes.  Absolutely correct - I am nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated. What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature? Everything deteriorates from order to disorder...measure it any way you like...leave a brand new car out in the elements for forty years and it will rust, deteriorate and begin to break down as the certain scientific law of Entropy dictates...it is unstoppable, the universe will one day contract in on itself into nothingness...the particles and substance of the universe are random, chaotic and we are a part of that and guilt doctrines cannot be ascribed to us unless you are trying to impose some psuedo religious trip on us... :) :) What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature?

Because it is chaotic, therefore your argument is pointless, the universe cannot be blamed for being the way it is and you cant tax a part of the substance of the universe for the way it interacts with other elements...it just is... :) :)

namnugenot wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 11:02pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:43pm: Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:40pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:37pm: A mate was telling me there was a protest being organised to highlight the failure of the press to report the Arctic melt. He wasn't sure who was organising it but he thought it was meant to coincide with the expected minimum. Can anyone tell me where I need to be? It's just a rumour, mate, like the rest of the AGW caper. Kids talking to other kids. I don't get how you can be so dismissive of the scientific consensus. Why are you so convinced our scientists are getting it wrong? But science is not consensus, it's facts and evidence...and your pulling up short on these 2.

I'm not the one providing the evidence and the facts. Others are, and collectively it is very persuasive. If it wasn't the American Meteorology Society wouldn't be taking this position.


Quote:

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence.  Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available).

Quote:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate

You've already admitted you can't articulate why the AGW hypothesis is flawed, why should I accept your position when the evidence points very clearly to AGW. Do you need me to summarise the evidence that points to AGW or can you identify what evidence would be required to convince you that our current warming is anthropogenic.

You are yet to illustrate why the random chaotic interactions of the universe can be blamed and taxed...

This sounds like a superstitious 16th century Lutheran doctrine called imputed guilt to me... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:37am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:32am: Prevailing wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:22am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:13am: Prevailing wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 11:46pm: You are nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated... :) :) Yes.  Absolutely correct - I am nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated. What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature? Everything deteriorates from order to disorder...measure it any way you like...leave a brand new car out in the elements for forty years and it will rust, deteriorate and begin to break down as the certain scientific law of Entropy dictates...it is unstoppable, the universe will one day contract in on itself into nothingness...the particles and substance of the universe are random, chaotic and we are a part of that and guilt doctrines cannot be ascribed to us unless you are trying to impose some psuedo religious trip on us... :) :) What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature? Because it is chaotic, therefore your argument is pointless, the universe cannot be blamed for being the way it is and you cant tax a part of the substance of the universe for the way it interacts with other elements...it just is... :) :)

What is "chaotic"  And why does that make the argument pointless?

The water most of us use to flush our toilets acts chaotically.  Do you refuse to use plumbing and crap in the street for this reason?

You are yet to explain what any of your ranting has to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature.

Why is that?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:28pm:

Prevailing wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:37am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:32am: Prevailing wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:22am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:13am: Prevailing wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 11:46pm: You are nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated... :) :) Yes.  Absolutely correct - I am nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated. What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature? Everything deteriorates from order to disorder...measure it any way you like...leave a brand new car out in the elements for forty years and it will rust, deteriorate and begin to break down as the certain scientific law of Entropy dictates...it is unstoppable, the universe will one day contract in on itself into nothingness...the particles and substance of the universe are random, chaotic and we are a part of that and guilt doctrines cannot be ascribed to us unless you are trying to impose some psuedo religious trip on us... :) :) What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature? Because it is chaotic, therefore your argument is pointless, the universe cannot be blamed for being the way it is and you cant tax a part of the substance of the universe for the way it interacts with other elements...it just is... :) :) What is "chaotic"  And why does that make the argument pointless? The water most of us use to flush our toilets acts chaotically.  Do you refuse to use plumbing and crap in the street for this reason? You are yet to explain what any of your ranting has to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature. Why is that?

what empirical evidence? CO2 rising and temps staying flat is not empirical evidence. Past climate temps vs CO2 is no empirical evidence on CO2's side.

Prevailing wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 11:20am:

You are yet to illustrate why the random chaotic interactions of the universe can be blamed and taxed... This sounds like a superstitious 16th century Lutheran doctrine called imputed guilt to me... :) :)

No one is taxing the random chaotic interactions of the universe.

However a price has been placed on the emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses because there is a long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature.

Just because you may not understand it - doesn't mean that sensible people will ignore it.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:30pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:28pm: Prevailing wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:37am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:32am: Prevailing wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:22am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:13am: Prevailing wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 11:46pm: You are nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated... :) :) Yes.  Absolutely correct - I am nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated. What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature? Everything deteriorates from order to disorder...measure it any way you like...leave a brand new car out in the elements for forty years and it will rust, deteriorate and begin to break down as the certain scientific law of Entropy dictates...it is unstoppable, the universe will one day contract in on itself into nothingness...the particles and substance of the universe are random, chaotic and we are a part of that and guilt doctrines cannot be ascribed to us unless you are trying to impose some psuedo religious trip on us... :) :) What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature? Because it is chaotic, therefore your argument is pointless, the universe cannot be blamed for being the way it is and you cant tax a part of the substance of the universe for the way it interacts with other elements...it just is... :) :) What is "chaotic"  And why does that make the argument pointless? The water most of us use to flush our toilets acts chaotically.  Do you refuse to use plumbing and crap in the street for this reason? You are yet to explain what any of your ranting has to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature. Why is that? what empirical evidence?

What empirical evidence would you like to see?

Empirical evidence that CO2, methane NOx HCFCs etc act as 'greenhouse gasses'?
Empirical evidence that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased significantly in recent decades?
Empirical evidence that the majority of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in anthropogenic?
Empirical evidence there has been a measured increase in the amount of downward longwave radiation in recent decades?
Empirical evidence there has been measured decrease in outgoing longwave radiation at the same wavelengths as those absorbed by CO2 in recent decades?
Empirical evidence there has been an observed increase in global temperature in recent decades?
Empirical evidence there has been an observed increase in sea level in recent decades?
Empirical evidence there has been a decrease in global glacial mass balance in recent decades?
Empirical evidence there has been a decrease in Arctic sea ice in recent decades?
Empirical evidence there has been a measured decrease in ocean pH in recent decades?

Which thread of the current overwhelming body of evidence are you most ignorant about?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:30pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:28pm: Prevailing wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:37am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:32am: Prevailing wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:22am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:13am: Prevailing wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 11:46pm: You are nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated... :) :) Yes.  Absolutely correct - I am nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated. What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature? Everything deteriorates from order to disorder...measure it any way you like...leave a brand new car out in the elements for forty years and it will rust, deteriorate and begin to break down as the certain scientific law of Entropy dictates...it is unstoppable, the universe will one day contract in on itself into nothingness...the particles and substance of the universe are random, chaotic and we are a part of that and guilt doctrines cannot be ascribed to us unless you are trying to impose some psuedo religious trip on us... :) :) What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature? Because it is chaotic, therefore your argument is pointless, the universe cannot be blamed for being the way it is and you cant tax a part of the substance of the universe for the way it interacts with other elements...it just is... :) :) What is "chaotic"  And why does that make the argument pointless? The water most of us use to flush our toilets acts chaotically.  Do you refuse to use plumbing and crap in the street for this reason? You are yet to explain what any of your ranting has to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature. Why is that? what empirical evidence? What empirical evidence would you like to see? Empirical evidence that CO2, methane NOx HCFCs etc act as 'greenhouse gasses'? Empirical evidence that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased significantly in recent decades? Empirical evidence that the majority of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in anthropogenic? Empirical evidence there has been a measured increase in the amount of downward longwave radiation in recent decades? Empirical evidence there has been measured decrease in outgoing longwave radiation at the same wavelengths as those absorbed by CO2 in recent decades? Empirical evidence there has been an observed increase in global temperature in recent decades? Empirical evidence there has been an observed increase in sea level in recent decades? Empirical evidence there has been a decrease in global glacial mass balance in recent decades? Empirical evidence there has been a decrease in Arctic sea ice in recent decades? Empirical evidence there has been a measured decrease in ocean pH in recent decades? Which thread of the current overwhelming body of evidence are you most ignorant about?

lol, the only item you got right that involves CO2 only and is measured empirical evidence was

Empirical evidence that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased significantly in recent decades?

The rest are debatable

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:41pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:35pm: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:30pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:28pm: Prevailing wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:37am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:32am: Prevailing wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:22am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:13am: Prevailing wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 11:46pm: You are nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated... :) :) Yes.  Absolutely correct - I am nothing but a collection of atoms and elements - the Earth is a dead rock in space, one day the sun will be extinguished, the earth will not be able to sustain life...you cannot stop scientific certainty with a tax and one day soon you will return to your most basic elementary form...for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.  In the Grave there is no conscious continuance of existence...you are annihilated. What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature? Everything deteriorates from order to disorder...measure it any way you like...leave a brand new car out in the elements for forty years and it will rust, deteriorate and begin to break down as the certain scientific law of Entropy dictates...it is unstoppable, the universe will one day contract in on itself into nothingness...the particles and substance of the universe are random, chaotic and we are a part of that and guilt doctrines cannot be ascribed to us unless you are trying to impose some psuedo religious trip on us... :) :) What does this have to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature? Because it is chaotic, therefore your argument is pointless, the universe cannot be blamed for being the way it is and you cant tax a part of the substance of the universe for the way it interacts with other elements...it just is... :) :) What is "chaotic"  And why does that make the argument pointless? The water most of us use to flush our toilets acts chaotically.  Do you refuse to use plumbing and crap in the street for this reason? You are yet to explain what any of your ranting has to do with the long standing theory supported by overwhelming empirical evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes energy at certain wavelengths to be redirected back towards the surface of the earth resulting in an increase in temperature. Why is that? what empirical evidence? What empirical evidence would you like to see? Empirical evidence that CO2, methane NOx HCFCs etc act as 'greenhouse gasses'? Empirical evidence that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased significantly in recent decades? Empirical evidence that the majority of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in anthropogenic? Empirical evidence there has been a measured increase in the amount of downward longwave radiation in recent decades? Empirical evidence there has been measured decrease in outgoing longwave radiation at the same wavelengths as those absorbed by CO2 in recent decades? Empirical evidence there has been an observed increase in global temperature in recent decades? Empirical evidence there has been an observed increase in sea level in recent decades? Empirical evidence there has been a decrease in global glacial mass balance in recent decades? Empirical evidence there has been a decrease in Arctic sea ice in recent decades? Empirical evidence there has been a measured decrease in ocean pH in recent decades? Which thread of the current overwhelming body of evidence are you most ignorant about? lol, the only item you got right that involves CO2 only and is measured empirical evidence was Empirical evidence that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased significantly in recent decades? The rest are debatable

Are they?!?!

By "debatable" - you mean you listen to Alan Jones and you believe what he tells you, right?

I guess you will have to show us your points of debate - won't you.  Can you do that?  Or do you need to wait for next weekends Bolt show for more ideas?

So - you understand that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased significantly.  That is a start i suppose.  But you don't understand that the majority of the increase has come from anthropogenic sources.

Where has the increase come from then?  Any ideas?
And all the CO2 from the coal and oil burnt over the last 2 centuies - where has it gone, if it is not the cause of the observed increase in concentration of atmospheric CO2?
And why has the C13/C12 ration of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere decreased?

the 13 C/12 C ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

What is debatable here?  The increase in concentration has been measured and quantified. The increase in CO2 emissions has been measured and quantified.  The decrease in C13/C12 ration has been measured.

What exactly do you find "debatable" about the uncontroversial fact that the majority of the increase has come from anthropogenic sources?

Could you tell us?

Progs, will never attempt to find common ground, just in case it is undermined by the next Watts' missive.

I'm delighted that he accepts the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Is it anthropogenic, progs?

Haven't been able to find any information on the protest. Which pisses me off because I was ready to march. Did a bit of a street poll on the record arctic melt and not one of the people I asked was aware of it. Why isn't this news?

It isn't news because people are not interested I think.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 7:42pm:

It isn't news because people are not interested I think.

Of course they are interested. It's the only reason for the carbon tax, and the carbon tax is massive news.

Why are we being kept in the dark?

Your carbon tax is big news because the way i see it people had a lie in the last election from the Prime Minister and also it is news because nobody wants to pay more taxes.

Its not the environment that is the news - it is the tax.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 8:10pm:

Your carbon tax is big news because the way i see it people had a lie in the last election from the Prime Minister and also it is news because nobody wants to pay more taxes. Its not the environment that is the news - it is the tax.

So let's not report the rationale for the tax. That's an absolute failure of the press.