Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training.

Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human  beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple.  "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.''

Fair enough, I've heard  him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear.

This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man.

Shutting him up would do no good. Another would just replace him.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 4:22am:

Shutting him up would do no good. Another would just replace him. SOB

It's not about shutting Alan Jones up. It's about telling Alan Jones that his behaviour is beneath contempt. It's about telling 2GB and their sponsors that we refuse to listen to a media outlet that employs broadcasters who deliberately mislead their audience. It's about telling sponsors we want no truck with companies that financially reward such reckless behaviour.

Here we go.

Tell 2GB you won't listen to their network until Alan Jones starts telling the truth.

http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7051&Itemid=157

I guess some lefties have got nothing better to do than continue there little jihad against alan jones which is showing that it is somewhat backfiring against them

Yeah interesting that ppl considered "righties" have no idea how to tell the truth from fiction.

SOB

Quote:

This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man.

It goes to show how vindictive, insidious and downright nasty these lefties still are, and still going after one man all because of one OFF THE CUFF REMARK which everyone acknowledge was low, But nooooo, they want to politically persecute him further

Quote:

The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public

Yeah and IM STILL WAITING FOR CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE MAKING THE PLANET WARMER, No wonder alan jones had made milliage from this issue,

stryder wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 6:34am:

Quote: The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public Yeah and IM STILL WAITING FOR CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE MAKING THE PLANET WARMER, No wonder alan jones had made milliage from this issue,

Its been explained a million times by the worlds most respected experts in the field so if you and others cant grasp the concept its hardly anyone's fault but your own.

Quote:

Its been explained a million times by the worlds most respected experts in the field so if you and others cant grasp the concept its hardly anyone's fault but your own.

Yeah I guess adelcrow, YOU REPEAT A LIE LONG ENOUGH, it can become the truth

Quote:

Its been explained a million times by the worlds most respected experts in the field so if you and others cant grasp the concept its hardly anyone's fault but your own.

Adelcrow, you just demonstrated to me you have such an open mind to such brainwashing from these respected and possibly POLITICALLY MOTIVATED EXPERTS

stryder wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 6:43am:

Quote: Its been explained a million times by the worlds most respected experts in the field so if you and others cant grasp the concept its hardly anyone's fault but your own. Adelcrow, you just demonstrated to me you have such an open mind to such brainwashing from these respected and possibly POLITICALLY MOTIVATED EXPERTS

You're assuming every professional on the planet only does their job to benefit themselves and because this is so no data or any scientific discovery can ever be trusted from the time we first emerged from caves until the end of time. Or does this only apply to the experts in the field of climate change or any discovery that annoys those that benefit financially or politically from the status quo ?
Lets face it..the problem has been explained and demonstrated time and time again by the experts so anyone that hasn't grasped the concept by now is never going to do so and its really a waste of time putting any more energy into those people.

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 1:25am:

Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training. Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human  beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple.  "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.'' Fair enough, I've heard  him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear. This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man.

Maybe you'd like to explain to all us plebs why, if there has been such an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, global temperatures have not increased but have actually decreased for the past nearly two decades?

With regard to Alan Jones, the solution is simple. If you don't like him and/or what he has to say, turn off the radio or switch to another station, because no one is forcing you to listen to him. Calling for boycotts simply shows how narrow-minded you are and confirms that you're unwilling to listen to any point of view other than your own.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 6:58am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 1:25am: Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training. Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human  beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple.  "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.'' Fair enough, I've heard  him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear. This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man. Maybe you'd like to explain to all us plebs why, if there has been such an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, global temperatures have not increased but have actually decreased for the past nearly two decades? With regard to Alan Jones, the solution is simple. If you don't like him and/or what he has to say, turn off the radio or switch to another station, because no one is forcing you to listen to him. Calling for boycotts simply shows how narrow-minded you are and confirms that you're unwilling to listen to any point of view other than your own.

Its been explained to you by the experts for many years now so if you cant grasp the concept you only have yourself to blame

Quote:

You're assuming every professional on the planet only does their job to benefit themselves and because this is so no data or any scientific discovery can ever be trusted from the time we first emerged from caves until the end of time. Or does this only apply to the experts in the field of climate change or any discovery that annoys those that benefit financially or politically from the status quo ?

adelcrow


Well given just how the CULTURE OF ACADEMIA is sooo pro left worldwide where these respected experts would mostly reside, I dont believe that my statement right back there is out of line

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 6:58am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 1:25am: Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training. Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human  beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple.  "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.'' Fair enough, I've heard  him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear. This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man. Maybe you'd like to explain to all us plebs why, if there has been such an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, global temperatures have not increased but have actually decreased for the past nearly two decades? With regard to Alan Jones, the solution is simple. If you don't like him and/or what he has to say, turn off the radio or switch to another station, because no one is forcing you to listen to him. Calling for boycotts simply shows how narrow-minded you are and confirms that you're unwilling to listen to any point of view other than your own.

aint that a fact???? boycott. name calling and so it goes on..

they even admit to having their day ruined by HAVING to listen to him.. hilarious.

between gillard and MOTR it wont be long before we need their permission to change our mind.

stryder wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 7:01am:

Quote: You're assuming every professional on the planet only does their job to benefit themselves and because this is so no data or any scientific discovery can ever be trusted from the time we first emerged from caves until the end of time. Or does this only apply to the experts in the field of climate change or any discovery that annoys those that benefit financially or politically from the status quo ? adelcrow Well given just how the CULTURE OF ACADEMIA is sooo pro left worldwide, I dont believe that my statement right back there is out of line

We'll just ignore every scientific discovery since the dawn of mankind simply because you and Alan Jones think you have different political views to the professionals in the many fields of science.

adelcrow wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 6:59am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 6:58am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 1:25am: Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training. Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human  beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple.  "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.'' Fair enough, I've heard  him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear. This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man. Maybe you'd like to explain to all us plebs why, if there has been such an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, global temperatures have not increased but have actually decreased for the past nearly two decades? With regard to Alan Jones, the solution is simple. If you don't like him and/or what he has to say, turn off the radio or switch to another station, because no one is forcing you to listen to him. Calling for boycotts simply shows how narrow-minded you are and confirms that you're unwilling to listen to any point of view other than your own. Its been explained to you by the experts for many years now so if you cant grasp the concept you only have yourself to blame

Yet there are plenty of other experts out there who claim otherwise. Some have lost jobs for speaking out against climate change. Jones had a point where he basically said that it's getting to a point where you don't just get shouted down for voicing your opposition to climate change - you get punished for it. You're clearly another narrow-minded individual unwilling to accept any point of view that conflicts with your own. I'll make up my own mind, so please don't think your comments influence my decisions in any way, shape or form.

Quote:

We'll just ignore every scientific discovery since the dawn of mankind simply because you and Alan Jones think you have different political views to the professionals in the many fields of science.

adelcrow




No, just scientific discoveries so vague and unclear in evidence like global warming by humans, and yet used politically by left leaning morons in politics that justifies WE NEED A NEW TAX, because of it


You have such an open mind, dont you adelcrow  ;D

stryder wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 7:10am:

No, just scientific discoveries so vague and unclear in evidence like global warming by humans, and yet used politically by left leaning morons in politics that justifies WE NEED A NEW TAX, because of it You have such an open mind, dont you adelcrow  ;D

I do tend to believe the experts when they tell me something..I use a plumber to fix my plumbing, a surgeon to operate when something goes wrong with my insides, a mechanic to service and fix my car and when it comes to climate science i trust those that study and work in the field.
I certainly wouldn't ignore the advice of an experienced bricklayer when it comes to building a wall and instead get Alan Jones around to give me a hand just because he assumes he knows everything.

Quote:

I do tend to believe the experts when they tell me something..I use a plumber to fix my plumbing, a surgeon to operate when something goes wrong with my insides, a mechanic to service and fix my car and when it comes to climate science i trust those that study and work in the field. I certainly wouldn't ignore the advice of an experienced bricklayer when it comes to building a wall and instead get Alan Jones around to give me a hand just because he assumes he knows everything.

Adelcrow


Well adelcrow, I guess there isnt such a heated political climate behind some plumbers fixing a blocked toilet, nor a surgeon removing an appendix out AS MUCH AS THERE IS A HEATED POLITICAL CLIMATE AROUND GLOBAL WARMING.

adelcrow wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 7:15am:

stryder wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 7:10am: No, just scientific discoveries so vague and unclear in evidence like global warming by humans, and yet used politically by left leaning morons in politics that justifies WE NEED A NEW TAX, because of it You have such an open mind, dont you adelcrow  ;D I do tend to believe the experts when they tell me something..I use a plumber to fix my plumbing, a surgeon to operate when something goes wrong with my insides, a mechanic to service and fix my car and when it comes to climate science i trust those that study and work in the field. I certainly wouldn't ignore the advice of an experienced bricklayer when it comes to building a wall and instead get Alan Jones around to give me a hand just because he assumes he knows everything.

Oh, dang! Here I've been all these years using a glazier to fix my plumbing and I had my tonsils removed by a vet!!!

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 1:25am:

Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training. Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human  beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple.  "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.'' Fair enough, I've heard  him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear. This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man.

Which begs the question:

Is 97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produced by nature?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 7:24am:

adelcrow wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 7:15am: stryder wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 7:10am: No, just scientific discoveries so vague and unclear in evidence like global warming by humans, and yet used politically by left leaning morons in politics that justifies WE NEED A NEW TAX, because of it You have such an open mind, dont you adelcrow  ;D I do tend to believe the experts when they tell me something..I use a plumber to fix my plumbing, a surgeon to operate when something goes wrong with my insides, a mechanic to service and fix my car and when it comes to climate science i trust those that study and work in the field. I certainly wouldn't ignore the advice of an experienced bricklayer when it comes to building a wall and instead get Alan Jones around to give me a hand just because he assumes he knows everything. Oh, dang! Here I've been all these years using a glazier to fix my plumbing and I had my tonsils removed by a vet!!!

You take the advice of a politically biased shock jock when it comes to climate science over the experts with years of expertise in the field so it wouldn't surprise me  :D

stryder wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Quote: Its been explained a million times by the worlds most respected experts in the field so if you and others cant grasp the concept its hardly anyone's fault but your own. Yeah I guess adelcrow, YOU REPEAT A LIE LONG ENOUGH, it can become the truth

So is Allen telling a lie and hoping that it will become true or doesn't he lie?

If he doesn't lie then why did he have to apology for?



stryder wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 6:43am:

Quote: Its been explained a million times by the worlds most respected experts in the field so if you and others cant grasp the concept its hardly anyone's fault but your own. Adelcrow, you just demonstrated to me you have such an open mind to such brainwashing from these respected and possibly POLITICALLY MOTIVATED EXPERTS

So you have a open mind and you are not getting brain wash by known politically motivated experts

I have heard the Alan Jones show once in my life in the time it took for the cab to go from Ryde to the airport.

It was pretty ordinary - reminded me of listening to Radio 4 in England (average age of listener/caller = 82).

He just seemed angry about everything and the show had little substance.
Admittedly thats just one show but I am not sure what all the fuss is about.

John S wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 7:34am:

stryder wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 6:40am: Quote: Its been explained a million times by the worlds most respected experts in the field so if you and others cant grasp the concept its hardly anyone's fault but your own. Yeah I guess adelcrow, YOU REPEAT A LIE LONG ENOUGH, it can become the truth So is Allen telling a lie and hoping that it will become true or doesn't he lie? If he doesn't lie then why did he have to apology for? stryder wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 6:43am: [quote]Its been explained a million times by the worlds most respected experts in the field so if you and others cant grasp the concept its hardly anyone's fault but your own. Adelcrow, you just demonstrated to me you have such an open mind to such brainwashing from these respected and possibly POLITICALLY MOTIVATED EXPERTS

So you have a open mind and you are not getting brain wash by known politically motivated experts
[/quote]

We are all influenced in some way by the opinions of others but the fact still remains that it is far wiser to take the advice of experienced experts rather than that of politicians or shock jocks whos only qualifications are the ability to manipulate people for their own benefit..

Adel, I would like to think we make up our own mind based upon the impacts of a policy/policies on you.

If they take the words of a shock jock/commentator/newspaper/bloke in the pub on how they should vote - then frankly the person is an idiot and not worth talking about.

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 7:30am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 1:25am: Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training. Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human  beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple.  "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.'' Fair enough, I've heard  him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear. This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man. Which begs the question: Is 97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produced by nature?

Yes. It is an uncontested fact. I suggest you read my post again. It is also an uncontested fact that human beings are 100% responsible for the recent increase in atmospheric CO2. Since industrialisation began in the 18th century, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 to 390ppm, a rise of about 40%. The 3% is a red herring that Alan throws out to confuse his listeners. He is employing the same rhetorical device you just used. It really is deceitful.

I have always conceded that humans have played a role in climate change.

I just happen to think that as usual people are tinkering around the edges and not addressing the real problem.

The real problem has been the obscene rise in emissions 1970 - present day in China and India.
MOTR do you realize that if China continues at its rate and increases its emissions by 50% by 2030 (as predicted) there is "what the rest of the world does will be completely irrelevant" *

* World Institute of Climate Scientists, Tokura Tanaka.

Alan Jones submitting to ''factual accuracy'' training?  That would be a bit like training a pit bull terrier to play with toddlers....

if this thread isnt the biggest waaaaaaambulance thread I have seen........

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:04am:

bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 7:30am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 1:25am: Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training. Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human  beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple.  "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.'' Fair enough, I've heard  him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear. This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man. Which begs the question: Is 97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produced by nature? Yes. It is an uncontested fact. I suggest you read my post again. It is also an uncontested fact that human beings are 100% responsible for the recent increase in atmospheric CO2. Since industrialisation began in the 18th century, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 to 390ppm, a rise of about 40%. The 3% is a red herring that Alan throws out to confuse his listeners. He is employing the same rhetorical device you just used. It really is deceitful.

No it's not, it's an uncontested fact...97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphre is produced by nature.

Another question;

Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?

Frances wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:15am:

Alan Jones submitting to ''factual accuracy'' training?  That would be a bit like training a pit bull terrier to play with toddlers....

LOL

He said, para; "Factual accuracy? I'll give them factual accuracy, factual accuracy about everything wrong this govt [the Gillard govt] is doing!!!" :)

The problem with these lefty dictators is that they dont like jones giving people the other side of the debate in such a way that they may get it.

You cant control the people if you have alan jones types on the radio.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:34am:

if this thread isnt the biggest waaaaaaambulance thread I have seen........

Just think of it as another opportunity to display your intellectual cowardice, progs.

I would say to boycott all the right wing media propagandists and their advertisers.

Show them that if they can not provide an honest balanced broadcast they will not be viable.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:58am:

The problem with these lefty dictators is that they dont like jones giving people the other side of the debate in such a way that they may get it. You cant control the people if you have alan jones types on the radio.

on one hand you have every major scientific organisation arguing the science .... and on the other you have crackpot Alan arguing against the science .... progs your an idiot to even think he presents 'another side of the debate' ..... all the major scientific bodies agree that there is no debate ...

I wouldnt take toilet cleaning advice from Jones let alone advice on the future of the planet.

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:04am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 7:30am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 1:25am: Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training. Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human  beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple.  "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.'' Fair enough, I've heard  him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear. This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man. Which begs the question: Is 97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produced by nature? Yes. It is an uncontested fact. I suggest you read my post again. It is also an uncontested fact that human beings are 100% responsible for the recent increase in atmospheric CO2. Since industrialisation began in the 18th century, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 to 390ppm, a rise of about 40%. The 3% is a red herring that Alan throws out to confuse his listeners. He is employing the same rhetorical device you just used. It really is deceitful. No it's not, it's an uncontested fact...97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphre is produced by nature. Another question; Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?

What are you disagreeing with bambu. You sound confused and we've hardly started.

stryder wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 6:31am:

Quote: This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man. It goes to show how vindictive, insidious and downright nasty these lefties still are, and still going after one man all because of one OFF THE CUFF REMARK which everyone acknowledge was low, But nooooo, they want to politically persecute him further

Yet it is absolutly OK to go after Slipper in the same manner over some personal texts which should have never been made public. vindictive, insidious and downright nasty looks accurate.

John Smith wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:06am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:58am: The problem with these lefty dictators is that they dont like jones giving people the other side of the debate in such a way that they may get it. You cant control the people if you have alan jones types on the radio. on one hand you have every major scientific organisation arguing the science .... and on the other you have crackpot Alan arguing against the science .... progs your an idiot to even think he presents 'another side of the debate' ..... all the major scientific bodies agree that there is no debate ...

Really, not according to the congaline of scientists Alan Jones has intervewed on his show over the last few years...the podcasts are on his 2GB page.

Oh, and sea levels fell last year...so much for having to build a 'beach house in the Blue Mountains'.

All or most Central Coast councils have now cancelled the 'warnings/notations' or whatever they had on properties...about rising sea levels and the 'climate change/global warming permanent floods' that were claimed to be going to happen.

As far as CO2 being a pollutant, I don't plan on getting bogged down in semantics. I think the US EPA words it well.


Quote:

EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity WASHINGTON – After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. GHGs are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/08D11A451131BCA585257685005BF252

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:11am:

bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:46am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:04am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 7:30am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 1:25am: Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training. Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human  beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple.  "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.'' Fair enough, I've heard  him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear. This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man. Which begs the question: Is 97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produced by nature? Yes. It is an uncontested fact. I suggest you read my post again. It is also an uncontested fact that human beings are 100% responsible for the recent increase in atmospheric CO2. Since industrialisation began in the 18th century, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 to 390ppm, a rise of about 40%. The 3% is a red herring that Alan throws out to confuse his listeners. He is employing the same rhetorical device you just used. It really is deceitful. No it's not, it's an uncontested fact...97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphre is produced by nature. Another question; Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? You sound confused and we've hardly started.

Nah, just asking some simple questions.

Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
Yes, or no, it's one or the other.

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:04am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 7:30am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 1:25am: Today, or yesterday morning now, I had to stomach another Alan Jones non-apology. . Yesterday he took to the airwaves to defend himself against the the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ruling that he breached the broadcast code and must submit to ''factual accuracy'' training. Jones told his listeners that he was in error when he claimed human  beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. He claimed that all along he knew that "human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air, not .001 per cent." His excuse was simple.  "It might have been a late night or a very busy morning. We cover a lot of territory here in this programme.'' Fair enough, I've heard  him on numerous occasions say that human beings produce 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air. I accept that he was confused and did not deliberately broadcast what he knew to be an inaccurate fact. So why am I seething with anger? Well, my anger stems from what he said next, "but I have offered the simple proposition on many occasions that if there is warming, how can the human beings be doing it when 97 per cent of carbon dioxide is produced by nature, 3 per cent by human beings." Certainly, the preposition on which he bases this proposition is, as Alan rightly suggests, uncontested. However, just as certainly, the proposition he proffers is moronic. While no credible scientist contests that human beings only produce 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, no credible scientist denies that human beings are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is simply because nature is currently emitting slightly less carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. That's right, Alan, natural processes aren't responsible for the current escalation, and if it wasn't for human beings, there would be 40% less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This too is an uncontested fact, an uncontested fact his listeners will never hear. This has been explained to Alan on numerous occasions. I don't believe Alan is simple, so the only possible explanation is that he is lying by exclusion. The man is an amoral propagandist on par with Lord Haw Haw. The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public. I won't be purchasing products from anyone who wants to associate themselves with this man. Which begs the question: Is 97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produced by nature? Yes. It is an uncontested fact. I suggest you read my post again. It is also an uncontested fact that human beings are 100% responsible for the recent increase in atmospheric CO2. Since industrialisation began in the 18th century, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 to 390ppm, a rise of about 40%. The 3% is a red herring that Alan throws out to confuse his listeners. He is employing the same rhetorical device you just used. It really is deceitful. No it's not, it's an uncontested fact...97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphre is produced by nature.

No it's not, it's an uncontested fact...97% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphre is produced by nature.

Yes but that 97% is also used by nature. It is the Human component which breaks the balance and causes an accelerating accumulation of excess carbon in the atmosphers.

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:18am:

Nah, just asking some simple questions. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?

In the correct usage nothing is a pollutant but when in excess almost anything can be considered to be polluting.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:20am:

bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:18am: Nah, just asking some simple questions. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? In the correct usage nothing is a pollutant but when in excess almost anything can be considered to be polluting.

Like I said..if they haven't grasped the concept by now they never will

What's this 'carbonated water' in my Coke Zero drink?

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:03am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:34am: if this thread isnt the biggest waaaaaaambulance thread I have seen........ Just think of it as another opportunity to display your intellectual cowardice, progs.

Pretty hard to be matching yours right now.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:20am:

bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:18am: Nah, just asking some simple questions. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? In the correct usage nothing is a pollutant but when in excess almost anything can be considered to be polluting.

The US EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that makes it a hazard to human health.

I don't care what you want to call it, increasing atmospheric CO2 is a hazard to human health. It places our well being at risk and places in jeopardy the well being of our children.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:31am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:03am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:34am: if this thread isnt the biggest waaaaaaambulance thread I have seen........ Just think of it as another opportunity to display your intellectual cowardice, progs. Pretty hard to be matching yours right now.

How about you start by presenting an argument or at least a proposition, progs. Are you going to deny that humans are responsible for increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 40% since industrialisation.

Are you going to deny Alan Jones keeps this uncontested fact hidden from his listners.

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:33am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:20am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:18am: Nah, just asking some simple questions. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? In the correct usage nothing is a pollutant but when in excess almost anything can be considered to be polluting. The US EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that makes it a hazard to human health. I don't care what you want to call it, increasing atmospheric CO2 is a hazard to human health. It places our well being at risk and places in jeopardy the well being of our children.

And we know the idiots who are following the epa.

Agenda driven policy, who would have guessed.

Anyway, I thought you were all pseudo sciencecy, now you are following a government agency.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:44am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:33am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:20am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:18am: Nah, just asking some simple questions. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? In the correct usage nothing is a pollutant but when in excess almost anything can be considered to be polluting. The US EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that makes it a hazard to human health. I don't care what you want to call it, increasing atmospheric CO2 is a hazard to human health. It places our well being at risk and places in jeopardy the well being of our children. And we know the idiots who are following the epa. Agenda driven policy, who would have guessed. Anyway, I thought you were all pseudo sciencecy, now you are following a government agency.

That about sums up progs' argument. The world's not warming, Arctic ice isn't disappearing, it's all a massive conspiracy. You can't trust the scientist, you can't trust government agencies.

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:33am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:20am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:18am: Nah, just asking some simple questions. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? In the correct usage nothing is a pollutant but when in excess almost anything can be considered to be polluting. The US EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that makes it a hazard to human health. I don't care what you want to call it, increasing atmospheric CO2 is a hazard to human health. It places our well being at risk and places in jeopardy the well being of our children.

The US EPA also says that sea levels are rising, which they're not.

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:53am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:44am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:33am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:20am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:18am: Nah, just asking some simple questions. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? In the correct usage nothing is a pollutant but when in excess almost anything can be considered to be polluting. The US EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that makes it a hazard to human health. I don't care what you want to call it, increasing atmospheric CO2 is a hazard to human health. It places our well being at risk and places in jeopardy the well being of our children. And we know the idiots who are following the epa. Agenda driven policy, who would have guessed. Anyway, I thought you were all pseudo sciencecy, now you are following a government agency. That about sums up progs' argument. The world's not warming, Arctic ice isn't disappearing, it's all a massive conspiracy.

Short of writing it on a brick and slapping them around with it they will never grasp whats going on so its really not worth the energy anymore

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:53am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:44am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:33am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:20am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:18am: Nah, just asking some simple questions. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? In the correct usage nothing is a pollutant but when in excess almost anything can be considered to be polluting. The US EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that makes it a hazard to human health. I don't care what you want to call it, increasing atmospheric CO2 is a hazard to human health. It places our well being at risk and places in jeopardy the well being of our children. And we know the idiots who are following the epa. Agenda driven policy, who would have guessed. Anyway, I thought you were all pseudo sciencecy, now you are following a government agency. That about sums up progs' argument. The world's not warming, Arctic ice isn't disappearing, it's all a massive conspiracy.

I know the drill. You say it often enough, people will believe it, even against the temperature record that has not warmed for 16years.

What kind of indoctrination program is it that can be so powerful to these AGW'rs that they believe the crap that comes out of their minds.

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:54am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:33am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:20am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:18am: Nah, just asking some simple questions. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? In the correct usage nothing is a pollutant but when in excess almost anything can be considered to be polluting. The US EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that makes it a hazard to human health. I don't care what you want to call it, increasing atmospheric CO2 is a hazard to human health. It places our well being at risk and places in jeopardy the well being of our children. The US EPA also says that sea levels are rising, which they're not.

You know all the flooding that comes with a La Niña, where would that water usually be, bambu? Again you are a victim of exclusion. Perhaps you need to join the boycott and start getting some real facts.

http://cdn.greenprophet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Global_Mean_Sea_Level.png

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:03am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:34am: if this thread isnt the biggest waaaaaaambulance thread I have seen........ Just think of it as another opportunity to display your intellectual cowardice, progs. Pretty hard to be matching yours right now. How about you start by presenting an argument or at least a proposition, progs. Are you going to deny that humans are responsible for increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 40% since industrialisation. Are you going to deny Alan Jones keeps this uncontested fact hidden from his listners.

I'm no Einstein, but let's see;

97% of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is produced by nature.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 40% since industrialisation.

x + y = z   

So the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produced by nature is still 97%.

If you don't like his show don't listen to it.....The only time I ever hear about Alan Jones is when he makes a huge blunder or from his fan club on the Internet.....This campaign against him seams more motivated against Jones personality and political views than any offence he has caused.....I am over Alan Jones already!!!

::) ::) ::)

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:54am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:53am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:44am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:33am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:20am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:18am: Nah, just asking some simple questions. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? In the correct usage nothing is a pollutant but when in excess almost anything can be considered to be polluting. The US EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that makes it a hazard to human health. I don't care what you want to call it, increasing atmospheric CO2 is a hazard to human health. It places our well being at risk and places in jeopardy the well being of our children. And we know the idiots who are following the epa. Agenda driven policy, who would have guessed. Anyway, I thought you were all pseudo sciencecy, now you are following a government agency. That about sums up progs' argument. The world's not warming, Arctic ice isn't disappearing, it's all a massive conspiracy. I know the drill. You say it often enough, people will believe it, even against the temperature record that has not warmed for 16years. What kind of indoctrination program is it that can be so powerful to these AGW'rs that they believe the crap that comes out of their minds.

Basic physics tells us our planet should be warming and our satellites back this up. Our temperature record only tells us a small part of the story, 90% of the warming is occurring in our oceans. However, lets ignore this reality and only look at the temperature record. Only a fool would ignore the upward trend we can clearly see in our temperature record.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:06am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:58am: The problem with these lefty dictators is that they dont like jones giving people the other side of the debate in such a way that they may get it. You cant control the people if you have alan jones types on the radio. on one hand you have every major scientific organisation arguing the science .... and on the other you have crackpot Alan arguing against the science .... progs your an idiot to even think he presents 'another side of the debate' ..... all the major scientific bodies agree that there is no debate ... Really, not according to the congaline of scientists Alan Jones has intervewed on his show over the last few years...the podcasts are on his 2GB page. Oh, and sea levels fell last year...so much for having to build a 'beach house in the Blue Mountains'. All or most Central Coast councils have now cancelled the 'warnings/notations' or whatever they had on properties...about rising sea levels and the 'climate change/global warming permanent floods' that were claimed to be going to happen.

rubbish ... you get independent wannabe scientists who take a small snippet of the evidence, an anomaly, and go on and on about that just so they can suit there own agenda ....  with something with as many variables as climate, of course there are anomalies to the general trend ... but the overall trend is uncontested ... the planet is warming ... just about every major scientific organisation cannot be wrong ....

if every major hospital told you the best treatment was xxxx and showed you their evidence to support their claim, and some unknown doctor came and said they were all wrong, the best option is YYYY with a little anecdotal evidence to support his claim who would you listen too? I'm betting it wouldn't be the unknown doctor .... the best advice anyone can give you is to LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS ....

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:09am:

If you don't like his show don't listen to it.....The only time I ever hear about Alan Jones is when he makes a huge blunder or from his fan club on the Internet.....This campaign against him seams more motivated against Jones personality and political views than any offence he has caused.....I am over Alan Jones already!!! ::) ::) ::)

On an ABC tv program, or at the ACMA inquiry into him, or somewhere else in the couple of days before his show yesterday morning, he was blamed again for starting the 'Cronulla Riots'.
He was fired up about that in his show yesterday as well, and played a montage of segments from his show from the Thursday morning before that weekend, where he repeatedly urged 'boys' [a text message was circulating urging the 'boys' to arrive at Cronulla beach the following Sunday to 'take revenge' for the bashing by Middle Eastern thugs of the two junior lifeguards the weekend before, one receiving a fractured eye socket.
"Come on boys, you can't be doing that, that'd be making us like them, let the police handle it" etc he said.
He even had Premier Iemma, remember him?...on the show backing up his call for no viligantes to take the law into their own hands.
Don't think 'the boys' were listeners of his.

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:09am:

If you don't like his show don't listen to it.....The only time I ever hear about Alan Jones is when he makes a huge blunder or from his fan club on the Internet.....This campaign against him seams more motivated against Jones personality and political views than any offence he has caused.....I am over Alan Jones already!!! ::) ::) ::)

Deliberately spreading falsehoods and downplaying the risks of global warming is playing with fire. We have at best a decade to act. We can't afford to have broadcasters deliberately confusing the public. Companies who want to align themselves with this type of behaviour will face commercial consequences.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/17777/Sea-Level-Fall-Defies-Climate-Warnings-Avg-sea-levels-fell-by-5mm-in-2011

Sea Level Fall Defies Climate Warnings: 'Avg. sea levels fell by 5mm in 2011' Read the Full Article

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:23am:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/17777/Sea-Level-Fall-Defies-Climate-Warnings-Avg-sea-levels-fell-by-5mm-in-2011 Sea Level Fall Defies Climate Warnings: 'Avg. sea levels fell by 5mm in 2011' Read the Full Article

Your link doesn't seem to work.

You do understand the difference between natural variation and trend? I trust you understand that no scientist expects these changes to be monotonic.


Quote:

The 2011 La Niña, one of the strongest in recent decades, absorbed so much moisture from the oceans and dropped it as precipitation over northern parts of Australia and South America that global mean sea levels fell by about half a centimeter. That was the key point that Eric Lindstrom, an oceanographer based at NASA headquarters, made today while giving a presentation.

http://wiki.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth/posts/post_1323211578062.html

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6194/6077265698_01661f1531_o.gif

Of course there's climate change, ice ages come and go, the planet heats up the planet cools.

Uluru was once at the bottom of the ocean?

People could once walk from Australia to India?

It's 'man-made' climate change that's the so called problem today.

How stupid MOTR

You call for a boycott of 2GB for a comment by Jones made at Gillard

Yet on a scale of things - you have not called for a boycott of the PM who have destroyed lives in Australia

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:15am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:54am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:53am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:44am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:33am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:20am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:18am: Nah, just asking some simple questions. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? In the correct usage nothing is a pollutant but when in excess almost anything can be considered to be polluting. The US EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that makes it a hazard to human health. I don't care what you want to call it, increasing atmospheric CO2 is a hazard to human health. It places our well being at risk and places in jeopardy the well being of our children. And we know the idiots who are following the epa. Agenda driven policy, who would have guessed. Anyway, I thought you were all pseudo sciencecy, now you are following a government agency. That about sums up progs' argument. The world's not warming, Arctic ice isn't disappearing, it's all a massive conspiracy. I know the drill. You say it often enough, people will believe it, even against the temperature record that has not warmed for 16years. What kind of indoctrination program is it that can be so powerful to these AGW'rs that they believe the crap that comes out of their minds. Basic physics tells us our planet should be warming and our satellites back this up. Our temperature record only tells us a small part of the story, 90% of the warming is occurring in our oceans. However, lets ignore this reality and only look at the temperature record. Only a fool would ignore the upward trend we can clearly see in our temperature record. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png

Even that graph shows the temperature being flat (compared to 78-98) for the 16 years, although warmer than earlier.

I always laugh when looking at the earth's climate - which is several billion years old - people pull up graphs showing the last couple of decades.

It's like working out the distance of London to Sydney and measuring with a tape the portion of your house to the end of the street.

And we know what to expect with the next El Niño, don't we, progs. What are you going to argue when the next massive El Niño event pushes us well past the last record.

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:23am: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/17777/Sea-Level-Fall-Defies-Climate-Warnings-Avg-sea-levels-fell-by-5mm-in-2011 Sea Level Fall Defies Climate Warnings: 'Avg. sea levels fell by 5mm in 2011' Read the Full Article [quote]Your link doesn't seem to work. You do understand the difference between natural variation and trend? I trust you understand that no scientist expects these changes to be monotonic.

Try the link again...it works for me, you have to click on the Read The Full Article

Sea Level Fall Defies Climate Warnings

Global average sea levels fell by 5mm last year, presenting an inconvenient fact in a climate change narrative that warns of severe long-term threats to coastal settlements.

The 5mm decline was almost twice the rate of the 3mm-a-year average increase recorded over the past 20 years and three times the 130-year average rise rate of 1.7mm a year.

A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters and reported by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science yesterday claims to have found the answer to why sea levels fell, not rose.

And, according to the paper, the retreat is only temporary.



#####

We'll see.

I understand a tape measure.

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:37am:

And we know what to expect with the next El Niño, don't we, progs. What are you going to argue when the next massive El Niño event pushes us well past the last record.

Cant you wait?

Maqqa wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:34am:

How stupid MOTR You call for a boycott of 2GB for a comment by Jones made at Gillard Yet on a scale of things - you have not called for a boycott of the PM who have destroyed lives in Australia

This is not about Jones being a miserable individual. This is about his deliberate attempt to obfuscate the facts about global warming.

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:40am:

Maqqa wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:34am: How stupid MOTR You call for a boycott of 2GB for a comment by Jones made at Gillard Yet on a scale of things - you have not called for a boycott of the PM who have destroyed lives in Australia This is not about Jones being a miserable individual. This is about his deliberate attempt to obfuscate the facts about global warming.

His opinions, backed up by his scientists, are his opinions on climate change and global warming...as your opinions backed up by your scientists are your opinions.

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:44am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:40am: Maqqa wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:34am: How stupid MOTR You call for a boycott of 2GB for a comment by Jones made at Gillard Yet on a scale of things - you have not called for a boycott of the PM who have destroyed lives in Australia This is not about Jones being a miserable individual. This is about his deliberate attempt to obfuscate the facts about global warming. His opinions, backed up by his scientists, are his opinions on climate change and global warming...as your opinions backed up by your scientists are your opinions.

Well we cant have anyone else having a different opinion on a pseudo science trying to make out that it is empirical fact.

MOTR is making his personality look like an indoctrinated air head.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:39am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:37am: And we know what to expect with the next El Niño, don't we, progs. What are you going to argue when the next massive El Niño event pushes us well past the last record. Cant you wait?

I don't need to wait, progs, because I know exactly what you'll argue next. It will be essentially the same argument with a different date.

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:48am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:39am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:37am: And we know what to expect with the next El Niño, don't we, progs. What are you going to argue when the next massive El Niño event pushes us well past the last record. Cant you wait? I don't need to wait, progs, because I know exactly what you'll argue next. It will be essentially the same argument with a different date.

So you are predicting without actually predicting the content. Thats pretty lazy and deceitful.

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:38am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:25am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:23am: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/17777/Sea-Level-Fall-Defies-Climate-Warnings-Avg-sea-levels-fell-by-5mm-in-2011 Sea Level Fall Defies Climate Warnings: 'Avg. sea levels fell by 5mm in 2011' Read the Full Article [quote]Your link doesn't seem to work. You do understand the difference between natural variation and trend? I trust you understand that no scientist expects these changes to be monotonic. Try the link again...it works for me, you have to click on the Read The Full Article Sea Level Fall Defies Climate Warnings Global average sea levels fell by 5mm last year, presenting an inconvenient fact in a climate change narrative that warns of severe long-term threats to coastal settlements. The 5mm decline was almost twice the rate of the 3mm-a-year average increase recorded over the past 20 years and three times the 130-year average rise rate of 1.7mm a year. A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters and reported by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science yesterday claims to have found the answer to why sea levels fell, not rose. And, according to the paper, the retreat is only temporary. ##### We'll see. I understand a tape measure.

Did you read the last line, bambu. I've highlighted it for you.

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:50am:

bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:38am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:25am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:23am: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/17777/Sea-Level-Fall-Defies-Climate-Warnings-Avg-sea-levels-fell-by-5mm-in-2011 Sea Level Fall Defies Climate Warnings: 'Avg. sea levels fell by 5mm in 2011' Read the Full Article [quote]Your link doesn't seem to work. You do understand the difference between natural variation and trend? I trust you understand that no scientist expects these changes to be monotonic. Try the link again...it works for me, you have to click on the Read The Full Article Sea Level Fall Defies Climate Warnings Global average sea levels fell by 5mm last year, presenting an inconvenient fact in a climate change narrative that warns of severe long-term threats to coastal settlements. The 5mm decline was almost twice the rate of the 3mm-a-year average increase recorded over the past 20 years and three times the 130-year average rise rate of 1.7mm a year. A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters and reported by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science yesterday claims to have found the answer to why sea levels fell, not rose. And, according to the paper, the retreat is only temporary. ##### We'll see. I understand a tape measure. Did you read the last line, bambu. I've highlighted it for you.

I did read it, that's why I wrote 'we'll see'.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:50am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:48am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:39am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:37am: And we know what to expect with the next El Niño, don't we, progs. What are you going to argue when the next massive El Niño event pushes us well past the last record. Cant you wait? I don't need to wait, progs, because I know exactly what you'll argue next. It will be essentially the same argument with a different date. So you are predicting without actually predicting the content. Thats pretty lazy and deceitful.

I'm simply assuming you'll use the same piss weak arguments you've used in the past. I look forward to being disappointed.

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:56am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:50am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:48am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:39am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:37am: And we know what to expect with the next El Niño, don't we, progs. What are you going to argue when the next massive El Niño event pushes us well past the last record. Cant you wait? I don't need to wait, progs, because I know exactly what you'll argue next. It will be essentially the same argument with a different date. So you are predicting without actually predicting the content. Thats pretty lazy and deceitful. I'm simply assuming you'll use the same piss weak arguments you've used in the past. I look forward to being disappointed.

;) :-*

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:52am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:50am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:38am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:25am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:23am: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/17777/Sea-Level-Fall-Defies-Climate-Warnings-Avg-sea-levels-fell-by-5mm-in-2011 Sea Level Fall Defies Climate Warnings: 'Avg. sea levels fell by 5mm in 2011' Read the Full Article [quote]Your link doesn't seem to work. You do understand the difference between natural variation and trend? I trust you understand that no scientist expects these changes to be monotonic. Try the link again...it works for me, you have to click on the Read The Full Article Sea Level Fall Defies Climate Warnings Global average sea levels fell by 5mm last year, presenting an inconvenient fact in a climate change narrative that warns of severe long-term threats to coastal settlements. The 5mm decline was almost twice the rate of the 3mm-a-year average increase recorded over the past 20 years and three times the 130-year average rise rate of 1.7mm a year. A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters and reported by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science yesterday claims to have found the answer to why sea levels fell, not rose. And, according to the paper, the retreat is only temporary. ##### We'll see. I understand a tape measure. Did you read the last line, bambu. I've highlighted it for you. I did read it, that's why I wrote 'we'll see'.

The trendline seems very clear to me. It's why the US navy is factoring sea level rises into its strategic planning.

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 10:52am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:50am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:38am: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:25am: bambu wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 10:23am: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/17777/Sea-Level-Fall-Defies-Climate-Warnings-Avg-sea-levels-fell-by-5mm-in-2011 Sea Level Fall Defies Climate Warnings: 'Avg. sea levels fell by 5mm in 2011' Read the Full Article [quote]Your link doesn't seem to work. You do understand the difference between natural variation and trend? I trust you understand that no scientist expects these changes to be monotonic. Try the link again...it works for me, you have to click on the Read The Full Article Sea Level Fall Defies Climate Warnings Global average sea levels fell by 5mm last year, presenting an inconvenient fact in a climate change narrative that warns of severe long-term threats to coastal settlements. The 5mm decline was almost twice the rate of the 3mm-a-year average increase recorded over the past 20 years and three times the 130-year average rise rate of 1.7mm a year. A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters and reported by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science yesterday claims to have found the answer to why sea levels fell, not rose. And, according to the paper, the retreat is only temporary. ##### We'll see. I understand a tape measure. Did you read the last line, bambu. I've highlighted it for you. I did read it, that's why I wrote 'we'll see'.

I can see you walking around the streets wearing a snorkel before you work it out.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 9:06am:

I would say to boycott all the right wing media propagandists and their advertisers. Show them that if they can not provide an honest balanced broadcast they will not be viable.

Lol. What about the biased ABC, should we strip its funding too?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 11:07am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:06am: I would say to boycott all the right wing media propagandists and their advertisers. Show them that if they can not provide an honest balanced broadcast they will not be viable. Lol. What about the biased ABC, should we strip its funding too?

Do you have an objective measure of this, Misty?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 11:07am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 9:06am: I would say to boycott all the right wing media propagandists and their advertisers. Show them that if they can not provide an honest balanced broadcast they will not be viable. Lol. What about the biased ABC, should we strip its funding too?

You know the ABC managment were mostly specifically appointed by the Liberal government and their broadcast requirment on political matters is to provide equal time to both views.

Their bias is significantly less than many believe.

Do you know that of the ABC people who have gone into politics more represented the Liberals.

stryder wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 6:34am:

Quote: The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public Yeah and IM STILL WAITING FOR CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE MAKING THE PLANET WARMER, No wonder alan jones had made milliage from this issue,

How is it you are able to use a computer when we have no CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETC FIELDS EXIST?

Do you spend your days huddled inside your house clinging to the floor in fear that you may suddenly fly off into space because we have no  CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF THAT GRAVITY EXISTS?

Let me take a wild guess.  You have never studied any science, have you.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 11:31am:

stryder wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 6:34am: Quote: The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public Yeah and IM STILL WAITING FOR CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE MAKING THE PLANET WARMER, No wonder alan jones had made milliage from this issue, How is it you are able to use a computer when we have no CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETC FIELDS EXIST? Do you spend your days huddled inside your house clinging to the floor in fear that you may suddenly fly off into space because we have no  CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF THAT GRAVITY EXISTS? Let me take a wild guess.  You have never studied any science, have you.

Empirically if I touch a solid object without taking it to its melting point, will always be solid. If I dont take my floor into outer space, theres a good chance I will not float away and I can do that think that, without even knowing gravity existed.

Co2 is no where near empirically accurate. If co2 were empirically accurate, then the climate change models wouldnt be so screwed at prediction. Predicting what happens when you touch a solid object that is no where near its melting point is a no brainer and will be accurate to the nth degree.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 11:39am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 11:31am: stryder wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 6:34am: Quote: The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public Yeah and IM STILL WAITING FOR CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE MAKING THE PLANET WARMER, No wonder alan jones had made milliage from this issue, How is it you are able to use a computer when we have no CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETC FIELDS EXIST? Do you spend your days huddled inside your house clinging to the floor in fear that you may suddenly fly off into space because we have no  CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF THAT GRAVITY EXISTS? Let me take a wild guess.  You have never studied any science, have you. Empirically if I touch a solid object without taking it to its melting point, will always be solid. If I dont take my floor into outer space, theres a good chance I will not float away and I can do that think that, without even knowing gravity existed.

Oh.  So unlike Stryder110011 - you don't requre CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF for every aspect of your life.  Good for you.

You still should stop believing what Jonesy tells you though.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 11:43am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 11:39am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 11:31am: stryder wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 6:34am: Quote: The world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. In the year we broke the Arctic, it is time to hold accountable those who blatantly hide the truth from the public Yeah and IM STILL WAITING FOR CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE MAKING THE PLANET WARMER, No wonder alan jones had made milliage from this issue, How is it you are able to use a computer when we have no CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETC FIELDS EXIST? Do you spend your days huddled inside your house clinging to the floor in fear that you may suddenly fly off into space because we have no  CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF THAT GRAVITY EXISTS? Let me take a wild guess.  You have never studied any science, have you. Empirically if I touch a solid object without taking it to its melting point, will always be solid. If I dont take my floor into outer space, theres a good chance I will not float away and I can do that think that, without even knowing gravity existed. Oh.  So unlike Stryder110011 - you don't requre CONCRETE ACTUAL PROOF for every aspect of your life.  Good for you. You still should stop believing what Jonesy tells you though.

empirical proof is the only proof I need. I dont go through life thinking I had better believe my neighbor that I can fly. I might test it first with a rock over a cliff and see what the empirical information tells me.

See, I didnt even need to know gravity existed.

Are you purposely being obtuse, progs, or are you just missing the point.

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 12:21pm:

Are you purposely being obtuse, progs, or are you just missing the point.

Maybe you had better come up with a different point. A starting point is not to think people are indoctrinated or can be as you have been, if that is at all possible.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 12:22pm:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 12:21pm: Are you purposely being obtuse, progs, or are you just missing the point. Maybe you had better come up with a different point. A starting point is not to think people are indoctrinated or can be as you have been, if that is at all possible.

How about you tell us the point you think rabbitoh is making. That way we can see if you have missed the point. At the moment your arguments don't make sense.

I see the confusionalists have turned this thread into another " the climate is not getting warmer" lie. How  dumb are these dicks? They believe the word of a cross dressing  delusional old fart over that of the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientific community, dumbfvcks pure and simple dumbfvcks,  they shouldn't be allowed to breed.

skippy. wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 12:40pm:

I see the confusionalists have turned this thread into another " the climate is not getting warmer" lie. How  dumb are these dicks? They believe the word of a cross dressing  delusional old fart over that of the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientific community, dumbfvcks pure and simple dumbfvcks,  they shouldn't be allowed to breed.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50280

Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.—David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 14 October 2012

Quote:

According to the Daily Mail on October 13, UK Met Office data showed global warming stopped 16 years ago. Not so, said Met Office one day later.

Quote:

If you were engaging in social media this past weekend, you might have found an October 13, 2012 article suggesting that global warming stopped 16 years ago. The article is here. David Rose of the Daily Mail wrote it. The article says the UK Met Office sent out a news release release saying its data showed that global warming has stopped and that there is no “discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.” It now comes to light that this information is not true. The UK Met Office did not release a statement suggesting that “global warming stopped 16 years ago.” The UK Met Office, in fact, disavows any association with Mr. Rose and his article and says it was never asked any questions regarding the actual science of climate change and global warming by Mr. Rose. On October 14, 2012 – one day after Mr. Rose’s article appeared in the Daily Mail – the UK Met Office released its own blog post discussing the issues with the Daily Mail article. It’s very interesting reading.

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

http://en.es-static.us/upl/2012/10/warmest_years_on_record.png

Honestly, bambu, does it look like the decade 2000-2010 (red bars) is cooler than the previous decade 1990-1999(orange bars). It's time to boycott media that deliberately distorts the truth.

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 1:48pm:

skippy. wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 12:40pm: I see the confusionalists have turned this thread into another " the climate is not getting warmer" lie. How  dumb are these dicks? They believe the word of a cross dressing  delusional old fart over that of the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientific community, dumbfvcks pure and simple dumbfvcks,  they shouldn't be allowed to breed. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50280 Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.—David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 14 October 2012

Thank you for confirming my assertions that confusionalists who deny climate change  are total dumbasses that should be banned from breeding, bambi.

stryder wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 6:21am:

I guess some lefties have got nothing better to do than continue there little jihad against alan jones which is showing that it is somewhat backfiring against them

A stat - revealed the other day - showed that Gloria's audience is less than the Al Jazeera news service on ABC24

Just a lot of old biddies and silly old coots in the vilest of Sydney's western ghettos

buzzanddidj wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

stryder wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 6:21am: I guess some lefties have got nothing better to do than continue there little jihad against alan jones which is showing that it is somewhat backfiring against them A stat - revealed the other day - showed that Gloria's audience is less than the Al Jazeera news service on ABC24 Just a lot of old biddies and silly old coots in the vilest of Sydney's western ghettos

ABC 24  Disgusting Old Poo pushers from  Dalesford   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

bambu wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 1:48pm:

skippy. wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 12:40pm: I see the confusionalists have turned this thread into another " the climate is not getting warmer" lie. How  dumb are these dicks? They believe the word of a cross dressing  delusional old fart over that of the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientific community, dumbfvcks pure and simple dumbfvcks,  they shouldn't be allowed to breed. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50280 Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.—David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 14 October 2012

Why the Mail on Sunday was wrong to claim global warming has stopped
Tuesday 16 October 2012

Newspaper's claim that 'world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago' is simply wrong, says Met Office


The British newspaper the Mail on Sunday and its writer David Rose are notorious for publishing misleading (at best) climate-related articles, as we have discussed previously here, for example.  They have recently struck again, claiming that according to a "quietly released" Met Office report, global warming stopped 16 years ago (a myth which Skeptical Science debunks here and here).  This assertion is entirely fabricated, as the Met Office explained by publishing David Rose's inquiry and the Met Office's responses.



"Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here."


Rose's factually challenged article was predictably reproduced uncritically by the usual climate denial blogs and referenced by Fox News, perhaps in an attempt to distract from this year's record-breaking Arctic sea ice minimum.  However, virtually every point made in the article was factually incorrect, as Rose would have known if he were a Skeptical Science reader, because we recently pre-bunked his piece.

Rose attempted to elicit a statement from the Met Office by asking a question which would be described in court as "leading the witness":


"First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997."


The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator can be used to test this question.  The trend in the HadCRUT4 global surface temperature dataset since 1997 is 0.084 ± 0.152°C per decade (although we have not yet updated the HadCRUT4 data, the GISS and NCDC datasts show a similar warming trend since 1997).  While the trend is not statistically significant, the central value is positive, meaning the average surface temperature has most likely warmed over this period.

The Met Office also explained that Rose is essentially trying to go down the up escalator (Figure 1) by focusing on short-term noise while ignoring the long-term trend.



"Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual."


Continued ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong

MOTR wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

Quote: According to the Daily Mail on October 13, UK Met Office data showed global warming stopped 16 years ago. Not so, said Met Office one day later. [quote]If you were engaging in social media this past weekend, you might have found an October 13, 2012 article suggesting that global warming stopped 16 years ago. The article is here. David Rose of the Daily Mail wrote it. The article says the UK Met Office sent out a news release release saying its data showed that global warming has stopped and that there is no “discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.” It now comes to light that this information is not true. The UK Met Office did not release a statement suggesting that “global warming stopped 16 years ago.” The UK Met Office, in fact, disavows any association with Mr. Rose and his article and says it was never asked any questions regarding the actual science of climate change and global warming by Mr. Rose. On October 14, 2012 – one day after Mr. Rose’s article appeared in the Daily Mail – the UK Met Office released its own blog post discussing the issues with the Daily Mail article. It’s very interesting reading.

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

http://en.es-static.us/upl/2012/10/warmest_years_on_record.png

Honestly, bambu, does it look like the decade 2000-2010 (red bars) is cooler than the previous decade 1990-1999(orange bars). It's time to boycott media that deliberately distorts the truth.[/quote]
What you have is a graph full of homogenization and bias. This part of the temp record will eventually be fixed once the ideologues get thrown to the gutter where they belong.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Quote: According to the Daily Mail on October 13, UK Met Office data showed global warming stopped 16 years ago. Not so, said Met Office one day later. [quote]If you were engaging in social media this past weekend, you might have found an October 13, 2012 article suggesting that global warming stopped 16 years ago. The article is here. David Rose of the Daily Mail wrote it. The article says the UK Met Office sent out a news release release saying its data showed that global warming has stopped and that there is no “discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.” It now comes to light that this information is not true. The UK Met Office did not release a statement suggesting that “global warming stopped 16 years ago.” The UK Met Office, in fact, disavows any association with Mr. Rose and his article and says it was never asked any questions regarding the actual science of climate change and global warming by Mr. Rose. On October 14, 2012 – one day after Mr. Rose’s article appeared in the Daily Mail – the UK Met Office released its own blog post discussing the issues with the Daily Mail article. It’s very interesting reading. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ http://en.es-static.us/upl/2012/10/warmest_years_on_record.png Honestly, bambu, does it look like the decade 2000-2010 (red bars) is cooler than the previous decade 1990-1999(orange bars). It's time to boycott media that deliberately distorts the truth.

What you have is a graph full of homogenization and bias. This part of the temp record will eventually be fixed once the ideologues get thrown to the gutter where they belong.[/quote]

wrong ... what he has is an ongoing debate with a moron ....

John Smith wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:43pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:24pm: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Quote: According to the Daily Mail on October 13, UK Met Office data showed global warming stopped 16 years ago. Not so, said Met Office one day later. [quote]If you were engaging in social media this past weekend, you might have found an October 13, 2012 article suggesting that global warming stopped 16 years ago. The article is here. David Rose of the Daily Mail wrote it. The article says the UK Met Office sent out a news release release saying its data showed that global warming has stopped and that there is no “discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.” It now comes to light that this information is not true. The UK Met Office did not release a statement suggesting that “global warming stopped 16 years ago.” The UK Met Office, in fact, disavows any association with Mr. Rose and his article and says it was never asked any questions regarding the actual science of climate change and global warming by Mr. Rose. On October 14, 2012 – one day after Mr. Rose’s article appeared in the Daily Mail – the UK Met Office released its own blog post discussing the issues with the Daily Mail article. It’s very interesting reading. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ http://en.es-static.us/upl/2012/10/warmest_years_on_record.png Honestly, bambu, does it look like the decade 2000-2010 (red bars) is cooler than the previous decade 1990-1999(orange bars). It's time to boycott media that deliberately distorts the truth. What you have is a graph full of homogenization and bias. This part of the temp record will eventually be fixed once the ideologues get thrown to the gutter where they belong.

wrong ... what he has is an ongoing debate with a moron ....[/quote]
best you stop then.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:43pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:24pm: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Quote: According to the Daily Mail on October 13, UK Met Office data showed global warming stopped 16 years ago. Not so, said Met Office one day later. [quote]If you were engaging in social media this past weekend, you might have found an October 13, 2012 article suggesting that global warming stopped 16 years ago. The article is here. David Rose of the Daily Mail wrote it. The article says the UK Met Office sent out a news release release saying its data showed that global warming has stopped and that there is no “discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.” It now comes to light that this information is not true. The UK Met Office did not release a statement suggesting that “global warming stopped 16 years ago.” The UK Met Office, in fact, disavows any association with Mr. Rose and his article and says it was never asked any questions regarding the actual science of climate change and global warming by Mr. Rose. On October 14, 2012 – one day after Mr. Rose’s article appeared in the Daily Mail – the UK Met Office released its own blog post discussing the issues with the Daily Mail article. It’s very interesting reading. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ http://en.es-static.us/upl/2012/10/warmest_years_on_record.png Honestly, bambu, does it look like the decade 2000-2010 (red bars) is cooler than the previous decade 1990-1999(orange bars). It's time to boycott media that deliberately distorts the truth. What you have is a graph full of homogenization and bias. This part of the temp record will eventually be fixed once the ideologues get thrown to the gutter where they belong. wrong ... what he has is an ongoing debate with a moron ....

best you stop then.[/quote]

see, you can't even get that right ....  scroll through the pages and show me an ongoing debate between me and MOTR .... moron

John Smith wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:46pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:43pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 8:24pm: MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Quote: According to the Daily Mail on October 13, UK Met Office data showed global warming stopped 16 years ago. Not so, said Met Office one day later. [quote]If you were engaging in social media this past weekend, you might have found an October 13, 2012 article suggesting that global warming stopped 16 years ago. The article is here. David Rose of the Daily Mail wrote it. The article says the UK Met Office sent out a news release release saying its data showed that global warming has stopped and that there is no “discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.” It now comes to light that this information is not true. The UK Met Office did not release a statement suggesting that “global warming stopped 16 years ago.” The UK Met Office, in fact, disavows any association with Mr. Rose and his article and says it was never asked any questions regarding the actual science of climate change and global warming by Mr. Rose. On October 14, 2012 – one day after Mr. Rose’s article appeared in the Daily Mail – the UK Met Office released its own blog post discussing the issues with the Daily Mail article. It’s very interesting reading. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ http://en.es-static.us/upl/2012/10/warmest_years_on_record.png Honestly, bambu, does it look like the decade 2000-2010 (red bars) is cooler than the previous decade 1990-1999(orange bars). It's time to boycott media that deliberately distorts the truth. What you have is a graph full of homogenization and bias. This part of the temp record will eventually be fixed once the ideologues get thrown to the gutter where they belong. wrong ... what he has is an ongoing debate with a moron .... best you stop then.

see, you can't even get that right ....  scroll through the pages and show me an ongoing debate between me and MOTR .... moron[/quote]
;D ;D ;D :D

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

MOTR wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Quote: According to the Daily Mail on October 13, UK Met Office data showed global warming stopped 16 years ago. Not so, said Met Office one day later. [quote]If you were engaging in social media this past weekend, you might have found an October 13, 2012 article suggesting that global warming stopped 16 years ago. The article is here. David Rose of the Daily Mail wrote it. The article says the UK Met Office sent out a news release release saying its data showed that global warming has stopped and that there is no “discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.” It now comes to light that this information is not true. The UK Met Office did not release a statement suggesting that “global warming stopped 16 years ago.” The UK Met Office, in fact, disavows any association with Mr. Rose and his article and says it was never asked any questions regarding the actual science of climate change and global warming by Mr. Rose. On October 14, 2012 – one day after Mr. Rose’s article appeared in the Daily Mail – the UK Met Office released its own blog post discussing the issues with the Daily Mail article. It’s very interesting reading. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ http://en.es-static.us/upl/2012/10/warmest_years_on_record.png Honestly, bambu, does it look like the decade 2000-2010 (red bars) is cooler than the previous decade 1990-1999(orange bars). It's time to boycott media that deliberately distorts the truth.

What you have is a graph full of homogenization and bias. This part of the temp record will eventually be fixed once the ideologues get thrown to the gutter where they belong.[/quote]

You want us to believe their is some sort of conspiracy, that involves NASA, the US Navy, the Met Office, the IPCC, BOM, the American Meteorologist Society and a host of educational institutions and government agencies. Presumably you now want to include Mother Nature herself. If our satellite managers and thermometer readers are telling porkies how do you explain this?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/62750000/gif/_62750557_2012.gif

Here we go, progs, have you got an answer yet?

MOTR wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 9:30am:

Here we go, progs, have you got an answer yet?

Ok, simply for you, the time the artic ice went lower than 2007, there was a deep low and major storm that broke up the ice. Now the ice is back faster than ever. Big deal. Catastrophy.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/sea_ice_extent_l1.png


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-15-arctic-refreeze-fastest-ever/

When were the storms, progs. And how did the melt become so extensive without warming?

Why not just not listen to the show?

It would ensure you don't hear the program and also save all the time and energy on this fake, politically motivated outrage too.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 9:48am:

Why not just not listen to the show? It would ensure you don't hear the program and also save all the time and energy on this fake, politically motivated outrage too.

My outrage is not faked, Andrei. When you discover the truth about global warming, you are going to be as pissed off as I am with those who have clouded the issues and worked aggressively against action.

LOL Buzz. The Guardian attacking the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. What a shock.

The Daily Mail readership are decent ordinary families.

The Guardian are latte-sipping, sandal wearing poofters aloof to everyday life.

MOTR wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 9:45am:

When were the storms, progs. And how did the melt become so extensive without warming?

NASA gives an insight
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-seaicemin.html

With a bit of ifs and buts. The sea ice is and can be pretty thin. That is why boats can and do crush their way through it. But anyway, here is the quote in the article.


Quote:

"The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice", Parkinson said. "But that exact same storm, had it occurred decades ago when the ice was thicker and more extensive, likely wouldn't have had as prominent an impact, because the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now."

Here are some more quotes, progs. All of them, including your Mr. Parkinson, concur it is the thinness of the ice.


Quote:

Comments from Arctic Experts Several Arctic sea ice experts have weighed in on the record-breaking minimum in 2012 and the effects of the summer storm on this record.  According to NSIDC Director Mark Serreze, "The previous record, set in 2007, occurred because of near perfect summer weather for melting ice. Apart from one big storm in early August, weather patterns this year were unremarkable. The ice is so thin and weak now, it doesn't matter how the winds blow." NSIDC scientist Walt Meier said, "...in the context of what's happened in the last several years and throughout the satellite record, it's an indication that the Arctic sea ice cover is fundamentally changing....The Arctic used to be dominated by multiyear ice, or ice that stayed around for several years.  Now it's becoming more of a seasonal ice cover and large areas are now prone to melting out in summer." Dr. Julienne Stroeve (another NSIDC scientist) said, "The acceleration of the loss of the extent of the ice is mostly because the ice has been so thin. This would explain why it has melted so much this year. By June the ice edge had pulled back to where it normally is in September," "The 2007 record was set when you had weather conditions which were perfect for melting. This year we didn't have those. It was mixed. So this suggests the ice has got to a point where it's so thin it doesn't matter what the weather is, it's going to melt in the summer. This could become the new normal" NSIDC Arctic sea ice news and analysis: "Other than the August storm, the pressure pattern in 2012 does not appear to have been as favorable in promoting ice loss as was the case in 2007, and yet a new record low occurred." Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center said, "The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice.  But that exact same storm, had it occurred decades ago when the ice was thicker and more extensive, likely wouldn't have had as prominent an impact, because the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now." Paul A. Newman, chief scientist for Atmospheric Sciences at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center estimated that there have been about eight storms of similar strength during the month of August in the last 34 years of satellite records - one every 4 to 5 years.

MOTR wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 10:23am:

Here are some more quotes, progs. All of them, including your Mr. Parkinson, concur it is the thinness of the ice. Quote: Comments from Arctic Experts Several Arctic sea ice experts have weighed in on the record-breaking minimum in 2012 and the effects of the summer storm on this record.  According to NSIDC Director Mark Serreze, "The previous record, set in 2007, occurred because of near perfect summer weather for melting ice. Apart from one big storm in early August, weather patterns this year were unremarkable. The ice is so thin and weak now, it doesn't matter how the winds blow." NSIDC scientist Walt Meier said, "...in the context of what's happened in the last several years and throughout the satellite record, it's an indication that the Arctic sea ice cover is fundamentally changing....The Arctic used to be dominated by multiyear ice, or ice that stayed around for several years.  Now it's becoming more of a seasonal ice cover and large areas are now prone to melting out in summer." Dr. Julienne Stroeve (another NSIDC scientist) said, "The acceleration of the loss of the extent of the ice is mostly because the ice has been so thin. This would explain why it has melted so much this year. By June the ice edge had pulled back to where it normally is in September," "The 2007 record was set when you had weather conditions which were perfect for melting. This year we didn't have those. It was mixed. So this suggests the ice has got to a point where it's so thin it doesn't matter what the weather is, it's going to melt in the summer. This could become the new normal" NSIDC Arctic sea ice news and analysis: "Other than the August storm, the pressure pattern in 2012 does not appear to have been as favorable in promoting ice loss as was the case in 2007, and yet a new record low occurred." Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center said, "The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice.  But that exact same storm, had it occurred decades ago when the ice was thicker and more extensive, likely wouldn't have had as prominent an impact, because the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now." Paul A. Newman, chief scientist for Atmospheric Sciences at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center estimated that there have been about eight storms of similar strength during the month of August in the last 34 years of satellite records - one every 4 to 5 years.

who is mr parkinson and why do I own him?

You quoted him, progs, because you thought he was supporting your position. He was instead highlighting this inconvenient fact.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/sites/vancouverobserver.com/files/images/blog/body/sept12-arctic-ice-minvol.jpg

MOTR wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 10:41am:

You quoted him, progs, because you thought he was supporting your position. He was instead highlighting this inconvenient fact. http://www.vancouverobserver.com/sites/vancouverobserver.com/files/images/blog/body/sept12-arctic-ice-minvol.jpg

I quoted him for your benefit as you didnt seem to have a clue. As for his quote, I am not at all impressed with his prediction.

By the way it's Ms. Parkinson. She also had this to say:


Quote:

“Climate models have predicted a retreat of the Arctic sea ice; but the actual retreat has proven to be much more rapid than the predictions,” said Claire Parkinson, a climate researcher at NASA Goddard. “There continues to be considerable inter-annual variability in the sea ice cover, but the long-term retreat is quite apparent.”

Why is that, progs. Do you think she believes this long term retreat can be explained by Arctic storms.

Have another go.

MOTR wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 11:01am:

By the way it's Ms. Parkinson. She also had this to say: Quote: “Climate models have predicted a retreat of the Arctic sea ice; but the actual retreat has proven to be much more rapid than the predictions,” said Claire Parkinson, a climate researcher at NASA Goddard. “There continues to be considerable inter-annual variability in the sea ice cover, but the long-term retreat is quite apparent.” Why is that, progs. Do you think she believes this long term retreat can be explained by Arctic storms. Have another go.

In other words, they got it wrong.

Yes, they underestimated the effect of the warming. It's why we can't risk putting too much more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we don't understand all the implications. We shouldn't be playing dice with our children's future. It's why we should be boycotting broadcasters who deliberately hide important facts and aggressively work against us taking action.

MOTR wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 11:09am:

Yes, they underestimated the effect of the warming. It's why we can't risk putting too much more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we don't understand all the implications. We shouldn't be playing dice with our children's future. It's why we should be boycotting broadcasters who deliberately hide important facts and aggressively work against us taking action.

You obsess over co2 way too much. Go look at the other factors.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 11:35am:

MOTR wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:09am: Yes, they underestimated the effect of the warming. It's why we can't risk putting too much more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we don't understand all the implications. We shouldn't be playing dice with our children's future. It's why we should be boycotting broadcasters who deliberately hide important facts and aggressively work against us taking action. You obsess over co2 way too much. Go look at the other factors.

WHat are the "other factors"?!?!

You told us on another thread that there were "other drivers" which are responsible for the observed sea level rise, decrease in global glacial mass balance and decrease of the arctic ice cap which were not related to temperature rise - because you claim that temperature is not rising.

When asked to explain that - you naturally ran away.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1350597936/122#122

Could you tell us what these "other factors" you refer to now are?

Or will you just  run away again?

You have to wonder if media outlets not capable of broadcasting with honesty and integrity should be allowed to hold a license to broadcast or print?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 11:50am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:35am: MOTR wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:09am: Yes, they underestimated the effect of the warming. It's why we can't risk putting too much more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we don't understand all the implications. We shouldn't be playing dice with our children's future. It's why we should be boycotting broadcasters who deliberately hide important facts and aggressively work against us taking action. You obsess over co2 way too much. Go look at the other factors. WHat are the "other factors"?!?! You told us on another thread that there were "other drivers" which are responsible for the observed sea level rise, decrease in global glacial mass balance and decrease of the arctic ice cap which were not related to temperature rise - because you claim that temperature is not rising. When asked to explain that - you naturally ran away. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1350597936/122#122 Could you tell us what these "other factors" you refer to now are? Or will you just  run away again?

If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer.

I am happy to wait till you come up with something other than just 1 factor. Stop obsessing about co2 and you might learn something.

For instance, the way you and others go on, the increase in temp from baseline is 100% co2 caused. Is it to you or is it other factors combined.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 11:52am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:50am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:35am: MOTR wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:09am: Yes, they underestimated the effect of the warming. It's why we can't risk putting too much more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we don't understand all the implications. We shouldn't be playing dice with our children's future. It's why we should be boycotting broadcasters who deliberately hide important facts and aggressively work against us taking action. You obsess over co2 way too much. Go look at the other factors. WHat are the "other factors"?!?! You told us on another thread that there were "other drivers" which are responsible for the observed sea level rise, decrease in global glacial mass balance and decrease of the arctic ice cap which were not related to temperature rise - because you claim that temperature is not rising. When asked to explain that - you naturally ran away. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1350597936/122#122 Could you tell us what these "other factors" you refer to now are? Or will you just  run away again? If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. I am happy to wait till you come up with something other than just 1 factor. Stop obsessing about co2 and you might learn something. For instance, the way you and others go on, the increase in temp from baseline is 100% co2. Is it to you or is it other factors combined.

Oh look!!!!

It is the I HAVE BEEN CAUGHT TELLING LIES BUT AM TOO GUTLESS TO ADMIT IT answer!!!!

Ver poor form Progs.  Very poor.

Come on Progs, man up.  What are these "other factors".  Please enlighten us.


Explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising.

What are the "other factor" causing these observed results?

You made the claim.  Please elaborate.  Because at the moment - it looks like you are just a sad, ignorant Alan Jones fan who has been caught making things up.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 11:58am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:50am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:35am: MOTR wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:09am: Yes, they underestimated the effect of the warming. It's why we can't risk putting too much more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we don't understand all the implications. We shouldn't be playing dice with our children's future. It's why we should be boycotting broadcasters who deliberately hide important facts and aggressively work against us taking action. You obsess over co2 way too much. Go look at the other factors. WHat are the "other factors"?!?! You told us on another thread that there were "other drivers" which are responsible for the observed sea level rise, decrease in global glacial mass balance and decrease of the arctic ice cap which were not related to temperature rise - because you claim that temperature is not rising. When asked to explain that - you naturally ran away. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1350597936/122#122 Could you tell us what these "other factors" you refer to now are? Or will you just  run away again? If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. I am happy to wait till you come up with something other than just 1 factor. Stop obsessing about co2 and you might learn something. For instance, the way you and others go on, the increase in temp from baseline is 100% co2. Is it to you or is it other factors combined. Oh look!!!! It is the I HAVE BEEN CAUGHT TELLING LIES BUT AM TOO GUTLESS TO ADMIT IT answer!!!! Ver poor form Progs.  Very poor. Come on Progs, man up.  What are these "other factors".  Please enlighten us. Explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising. What are the "other factor" causing these observed results? You made the claim.  Please elaborate.  Because at the moment - it looks like you are just a sad, ignorant Alan Jones fan who has been caught making things up.

If you cant handle it, then P off. The best way to learn something is to get a complicated task and research it. Have it told to you, you will not learn in the same way.

Now if you think you know so much about climate change, then give some other factors that cause climate change. Give us the numbers in regard to percentage of recent temperature change caused by co2, ..... other factors. Tell us what percentage of the sea ice loss is caused by co2 and other factors.

BTW your question. Once you figure other factors, you would have a better answer to your question. Not until you give other factors.

FRED. wrote on Oct 20^th, 2012 at 3:49pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 3:45pm: stryder wrote on Oct 20th, 2012 at 6:21am: I guess some lefties have got nothing better to do than continue there little jihad against alan jones which is showing that it is somewhat backfiring against them A stat - revealed the other day - showed that Gloria's audience is less than the Al Jazeera news service on ABC24 Just a lot of old biddies and silly old coots in the vilest of Sydney's western ghettos ABC 24  Disgusting Old Poo pushers from  Dalesford(sic) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Im not even sure what that tries to MEAN ?

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 12:10pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:58am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:50am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:35am: MOTR wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:09am: Yes, they underestimated the effect of the warming. It's why we can't risk putting too much more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we don't understand all the implications. We shouldn't be playing dice with our children's future. It's why we should be boycotting broadcasters who deliberately hide important facts and aggressively work against us taking action. You obsess over co2 way too much. Go look at the other factors. WHat are the "other factors"?!?! You told us on another thread that there were "other drivers" which are responsible for the observed sea level rise, decrease in global glacial mass balance and decrease of the arctic ice cap which were not related to temperature rise - because you claim that temperature is not rising. When asked to explain that - you naturally ran away. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1350597936/122#122 Could you tell us what these "other factors" you refer to now are? Or will you just  run away again? If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. I am happy to wait till you come up with something other than just 1 factor. Stop obsessing about co2 and you might learn something. For instance, the way you and others go on, the increase in temp from baseline is 100% co2. Is it to you or is it other factors combined. Oh look!!!! It is the I HAVE BEEN CAUGHT TELLING LIES BUT AM TOO GUTLESS TO ADMIT IT answer!!!! Ver poor form Progs.  Very poor. Come on Progs, man up.  What are these "other factors".  Please enlighten us. Explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising. What are the "other factor" causing these observed results? You made the claim.  Please elaborate.  Because at the moment - it looks like you are just a sad, ignorant Alan Jones fan who has been caught making things up. If you cant handle it, then P off. The best way to learn something is to get a complicated task and research it. Have it told to you, you will not learn in the same way. Now if you think you know so much about climate change, then give some other factors that cause climate change. Give us the numbers in regard to percentage of recent temperature change caused by co2, ..... other factors. Tell us what percentage of the sea ice loss is caused by co2 and other factors. BTW your question. Once you figure other factors, you would have a better answer to your question. Not until you give other factors.

Please explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising.

What are the "other factors" causing these observed results?
What are these "factors" you want "figured in"?

You made the claim.  Please elaborate.

What are these "other factors" you claim are responsible for the observed phenomena of recent decades if it isn't global warming?

It is obvious you have been caught making things up.  Why don't you just man up and admit it?

Or explain what these strange and mysterious "factors" are you keep bleating on about?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 1:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 12:10pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:58am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:50am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:35am: MOTR wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:09am: Yes, they underestimated the effect of the warming. It's why we can't risk putting too much more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we don't understand all the implications. We shouldn't be playing dice with our children's future. It's why we should be boycotting broadcasters who deliberately hide important facts and aggressively work against us taking action. You obsess over co2 way too much. Go look at the other factors. WHat are the "other factors"?!?! You told us on another thread that there were "other drivers" which are responsible for the observed sea level rise, decrease in global glacial mass balance and decrease of the arctic ice cap which were not related to temperature rise - because you claim that temperature is not rising. When asked to explain that - you naturally ran away. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1350597936/122#122 Could you tell us what these "other factors" you refer to now are? Or will you just  run away again? If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. I am happy to wait till you come up with something other than just 1 factor. Stop obsessing about co2 and you might learn something. For instance, the way you and others go on, the increase in temp from baseline is 100% co2. Is it to you or is it other factors combined. Oh look!!!! It is the I HAVE BEEN CAUGHT TELLING LIES BUT AM TOO GUTLESS TO ADMIT IT answer!!!! Ver poor form Progs.  Very poor. Come on Progs, man up.  What are these "other factors".  Please enlighten us. Explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising. What are the "other factor" causing these observed results? You made the claim.  Please elaborate.  Because at the moment - it looks like you are just a sad, ignorant Alan Jones fan who has been caught making things up. If you cant handle it, then P off. The best way to learn something is to get a complicated task and research it. Have it told to you, you will not learn in the same way. Now if you think you know so much about climate change, then give some other factors that cause climate change. Give us the numbers in regard to percentage of recent temperature change caused by co2, ..... other factors. Tell us what percentage of the sea ice loss is caused by co2 and other factors. BTW your question. Once you figure other factors, you would have a better answer to your question. Not until you give other factors. Please explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising. What are the "other factors" causing these observed results? What are these "factors" you want "figured in"? You made the claim.  Please elaborate. What are these "other factors" you claim are responsible for the observed phenomena of recent decades if it isn't global warming? It is obvious you have been caught making things up.  Why don't you just man up and admit it? Or explain what these strange and mysterious "factors" are you keep bleating on about?

You keep making the claim you know about climate change. Well prove it. Stop with the co2 obsession and start giving he facts. Otherwise you are just a useful idiot.

Tell us the other factors that are causing warming/cooling. Tell us the percentages co2 is making it warmer. If it is 0.5 degrees over the baseline in the last 16 years from start to finish, then what percentage of that 0 degrees was caused by co2 and what was the percentages of the other factors.

Would it be cooler without co2. By how much and what temp would it be.

Come on, you know you can do it.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:04pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 1:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 12:10pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:58am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:50am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:35am: MOTR wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:09am: Yes, they underestimated the effect of the warming. It's why we can't risk putting too much more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we don't understand all the implications. We shouldn't be playing dice with our children's future. It's why we should be boycotting broadcasters who deliberately hide important facts and aggressively work against us taking action. You obsess over co2 way too much. Go look at the other factors. WHat are the "other factors"?!?! You told us on another thread that there were "other drivers" which are responsible for the observed sea level rise, decrease in global glacial mass balance and decrease of the arctic ice cap which were not related to temperature rise - because you claim that temperature is not rising. When asked to explain that - you naturally ran away. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1350597936/122#122 Could you tell us what these "other factors" you refer to now are? Or will you just  run away again? If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. I am happy to wait till you come up with something other than just 1 factor. Stop obsessing about co2 and you might learn something. For instance, the way you and others go on, the increase in temp from baseline is 100% co2. Is it to you or is it other factors combined. Oh look!!!! It is the I HAVE BEEN CAUGHT TELLING LIES BUT AM TOO GUTLESS TO ADMIT IT answer!!!! Ver poor form Progs.  Very poor. Come on Progs, man up.  What are these "other factors".  Please enlighten us. Explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising. What are the "other factor" causing these observed results? You made the claim.  Please elaborate.  Because at the moment - it looks like you are just a sad, ignorant Alan Jones fan who has been caught making things up. If you cant handle it, then P off. The best way to learn something is to get a complicated task and research it. Have it told to you, you will not learn in the same way. Now if you think you know so much about climate change, then give some other factors that cause climate change. Give us the numbers in regard to percentage of recent temperature change caused by co2, ..... other factors. Tell us what percentage of the sea ice loss is caused by co2 and other factors. BTW your question. Once you figure other factors, you would have a better answer to your question. Not until you give other factors. Please explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising. What are the "other factors" causing these observed results? What are these "factors" you want "figured in"? You made the claim.  Please elaborate. What are these "other factors" you claim are responsible for the observed phenomena of recent decades if it isn't global warming? It is obvious you have been caught making things up.  Why don't you just man up and admit it? Or explain what these strange and mysterious "factors" are you keep bleating on about? You keep making the claim you know about climate change. Well prove it. Stop with the co2 obsession and start giving he facts. Otherwise you are just a useful idiot. Tell us the other factors that are causing warming/cooling. Tell us the percentages co2 is making it warmer. If it is 0.5 degrees over the basline in the list 16 years, then what percentage of that 0 degrees was caused by co2 and what was the percentages of the other factors. Would it be cooler without co2. By how much and what temp would it be. Come on, you know you can do it.

Please explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising.

What are the "other factors" causing these observed results?
What are these "factors" you want "figured in"?

You made the claim.  Please elaborate. 

Avoiding the issue will get you nowhere.  Answer the question - or apologise for making things up

Well we can see the self appointed resident expert on pseudo climate science does not know other factors athat cause climate change.

So much for that knowledge.

Lesson to self, keep an eye out for self appointed experts. You cant argue with idiots.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:04pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 1:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 12:10pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:58am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:50am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:35am: MOTR wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:09am: Yes, they underestimated the effect of the warming. It's why we can't risk putting too much more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we don't understand all the implications. We shouldn't be playing dice with our children's future. It's why we should be boycotting broadcasters who deliberately hide important facts and aggressively work against us taking action. You obsess over co2 way too much. Go look at the other factors. WHat are the "other factors"?!?! You told us on another thread that there were "other drivers" which are responsible for the observed sea level rise, decrease in global glacial mass balance and decrease of the arctic ice cap which were not related to temperature rise - because you claim that temperature is not rising. When asked to explain that - you naturally ran away. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1350597936/122#122 Could you tell us what these "other factors" you refer to now are? Or will you just  run away again? If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. I am happy to wait till you come up with something other than just 1 factor. Stop obsessing about co2 and you might learn something. For instance, the way you and others go on, the increase in temp from baseline is 100% co2. Is it to you or is it other factors combined. Oh look!!!! It is the I HAVE BEEN CAUGHT TELLING LIES BUT AM TOO GUTLESS TO ADMIT IT answer!!!! Ver poor form Progs.  Very poor. Come on Progs, man up.  What are these "other factors".  Please enlighten us. Explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising. What are the "other factor" causing these observed results? You made the claim.  Please elaborate.  Because at the moment - it looks like you are just a sad, ignorant Alan Jones fan who has been caught making things up. If you cant handle it, then P off. The best way to learn something is to get a complicated task and research it. Have it told to you, you will not learn in the same way. Now if you think you know so much about climate change, then give some other factors that cause climate change. Give us the numbers in regard to percentage of recent temperature change caused by co2, ..... other factors. Tell us what percentage of the sea ice loss is caused by co2 and other factors. BTW your question. Once you figure other factors, you would have a better answer to your question. Not until you give other factors. Please explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising. What are the "other factors" causing these observed results? What are these "factors" you want "figured in"? You made the claim.  Please elaborate. What are these "other factors" you claim are responsible for the observed phenomena of recent decades if it isn't global warming? It is obvious you have been caught making things up.  Why don't you just man up and admit it? Or explain what these strange and mysterious "factors" are you keep bleating on about? You keep making the claim you know about climate change. Well prove it. Stop with the co2 obsession and start giving he facts. Otherwise you are just a useful idiot. Tell us the other factors that are causing warming/cooling. Tell us the percentages co2 is making it warmer. If it is 0.5 degrees over the baseline in the last 16 years from start to finish, then what percentage of that 0 degrees was caused by co2 and what was the percentages of the other factors. Would it be cooler without co2. By how much and what temp would it be. Come on, you know you can do it.

you are the one citing other factors .. it's up to you to say what those factors are dipsheat.... how can he research something that you made up? you want to use it as an excuse, support your argument, otherwise your just being a gutless coward ...

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:04pm:

You keep making the claim you know about climate change.

No - I haven't made that claim.  But I will claim to know far more about it than you do



progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:04pm:

Well prove it.

I think anyone reading this thread will see it is pretty obvious





progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:04pm:

Stop with the co2 obsession and start giving he facts. Otherwise you are just a useful idiot.

What facts do you want?  I am happy to oblige


progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:04pm:

Tell us the other factors that are causing warming/cooling.

Which would you like to learn more about?  Solar irradience? Milankovic Cycles?  ENSO? Plate techtonics?  Volcanic emissions? Particulate aerosols?

You were the one claiming that "other factors" had caused the arctic icecap to decrease - yet you say the earth is not warming!  Wat are these other "factors" besides global warming that are causing the acrtic icecap to decrease?



progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:04pm:

Tell us the percentages co2 is making it warmer. If it is 0.5 degrees over the baseline in the last 16 years from start to finish, then what percentage of that 0 degrees was caused by co2 and what was the percentages of the other factors.

Would you like to rewrite that question in English?


progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:04pm:

Would it be cooler without co2.

Yes


progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:04pm:

By how much and what temp would it be.

By about 33 deg c.  Without the greenhouse effect the earth's surface temperature would be about -18 deg C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Is there any point to this question?

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:04pm:

Come on, you know you can do it.

We are still waiting for you to tell us what these "other factors" are that have cause the actic ice cap to decrease, global glacial mass balance to decrease and sea levels to rise if it isn't global warming.

What are these "other factors"?

Please tell us.

John Smith wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:18pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 1:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 12:10pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:58am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:50am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:35am: MOTR wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:09am: Yes, they underestimated the effect of the warming. It's why we can't risk putting too much more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we don't understand all the implications. We shouldn't be playing dice with our children's future. It's why we should be boycotting broadcasters who deliberately hide important facts and aggressively work against us taking action. You obsess over co2 way too much. Go look at the other factors. WHat are the "other factors"?!?! You told us on another thread that there were "other drivers" which are responsible for the observed sea level rise, decrease in global glacial mass balance and decrease of the arctic ice cap which were not related to temperature rise - because you claim that temperature is not rising. When asked to explain that - you naturally ran away. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1350597936/122#122 Could you tell us what these "other factors" you refer to now are? Or will you just  run away again? If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. I am happy to wait till you come up with something other than just 1 factor. Stop obsessing about co2 and you might learn something. For instance, the way you and others go on, the increase in temp from baseline is 100% co2. Is it to you or is it other factors combined. Oh look!!!! It is the I HAVE BEEN CAUGHT TELLING LIES BUT AM TOO GUTLESS TO ADMIT IT answer!!!! Ver poor form Progs.  Very poor. Come on Progs, man up.  What are these "other factors".  Please enlighten us. Explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising. What are the "other factor" causing these observed results? You made the claim.  Please elaborate.  Because at the moment - it looks like you are just a sad, ignorant Alan Jones fan who has been caught making things up. If you cant handle it, then P off. The best way to learn something is to get a complicated task and research it. Have it told to you, you will not learn in the same way. Now if you think you know so much about climate change, then give some other factors that cause climate change. Give us the numbers in regard to percentage of recent temperature change caused by co2, ..... other factors. Tell us what percentage of the sea ice loss is caused by co2 and other factors. BTW your question. Once you figure other factors, you would have a better answer to your question. Not until you give other factors. Please explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising. What are the "other factors" causing these observed results? What are these "factors" you want "figured in"? You made the claim.  Please elaborate. What are these "other factors" you claim are responsible for the observed phenomena of recent decades if it isn't global warming? It is obvious you have been caught making things up.  Why don't you just man up and admit it? Or explain what these strange and mysterious "factors" are you keep bleating on about? You keep making the claim you know about climate change. Well prove it. Stop with the co2 obsession and start giving he facts. Otherwise you are just a useful idiot. Tell us the other factors that are causing warming/cooling. Tell us the percentages co2 is making it warmer. If it is 0.5 degrees over the baseline in the last 16 years from start to finish, then what percentage of that 0 degrees was caused by co2 and what was the percentages of the other factors. Would it be cooler without co2. By how much and what temp would it be. Come on, you know you can do it. you are the one citing other factors .. it's up to you to say what those factors are dipsheat.... how can he research something that you made up? you want to use it as an excuse, support your argument, otherwise your just being a gutless coward ...

Your words:
You obsess over co2 way too much. Go look at the other factors.

What are these "other factors" you are referring to?

John Smith wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:18pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 1:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 12:10pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:58am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:50am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:35am: MOTR wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:09am: Yes, they underestimated the effect of the warming. It's why we can't risk putting too much more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we don't understand all the implications. We shouldn't be playing dice with our children's future. It's why we should be boycotting broadcasters who deliberately hide important facts and aggressively work against us taking action. You obsess over co2 way too much. Go look at the other factors. WHat are the "other factors"?!?! You told us on another thread that there were "other drivers" which are responsible for the observed sea level rise, decrease in global glacial mass balance and decrease of the arctic ice cap which were not related to temperature rise - because you claim that temperature is not rising. When asked to explain that - you naturally ran away. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1350597936/122#122 Could you tell us what these "other factors" you refer to now are? Or will you just  run away again? If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. I am happy to wait till you come up with something other than just 1 factor. Stop obsessing about co2 and you might learn something. For instance, the way you and others go on, the increase in temp from baseline is 100% co2. Is it to you or is it other factors combined. Oh look!!!! It is the I HAVE BEEN CAUGHT TELLING LIES BUT AM TOO GUTLESS TO ADMIT IT answer!!!! Ver poor form Progs.  Very poor. Come on Progs, man up.  What are these "other factors".  Please enlighten us. Explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising. What are the "other factor" causing these observed results? You made the claim.  Please elaborate.  Because at the moment - it looks like you are just a sad, ignorant Alan Jones fan who has been caught making things up. If you cant handle it, then P off. The best way to learn something is to get a complicated task and research it. Have it told to you, you will not learn in the same way. Now if you think you know so much about climate change, then give some other factors that cause climate change. Give us the numbers in regard to percentage of recent temperature change caused by co2, ..... other factors. Tell us what percentage of the sea ice loss is caused by co2 and other factors. BTW your question. Once you figure other factors, you would have a better answer to your question. Not until you give other factors. Please explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising. What are the "other factors" causing these observed results? What are these "factors" you want "figured in"? You made the claim.  Please elaborate. What are these "other factors" you claim are responsible for the observed phenomena of recent decades if it isn't global warming? It is obvious you have been caught making things up.  Why don't you just man up and admit it? Or explain what these strange and mysterious "factors" are you keep bleating on about? You keep making the claim you know about climate change. Well prove it. Stop with the co2 obsession and start giving he facts. Otherwise you are just a useful idiot. Tell us the other factors that are causing warming/cooling. Tell us the percentages co2 is making it warmer. If it is 0.5 degrees over the baseline in the last 16 years from start to finish, then what percentage of that 0 degrees was caused by co2 and what was the percentages of the other factors. Would it be cooler without co2. By how much and what temp would it be. Come on, you know you can do it. you are the one citing other factors .. it's up to you to say what those factors are dipsheat.... how can he research something that you made up? you want to use it as an excuse, support your argument, otherwise your just being a gutless coward ...

if anyone purports to know climate change, they dam sure better know all the factors, not just the obsession with co2.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:19pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: You keep making the claim you know about climate change. No - I haven't made that claim.  But I will claim to know far more about it than you do progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: Well prove it.  I think anyone reading this thread will see it is pretty obvious progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: Stop with the co2 obsession and start giving he facts. Otherwise you are just a useful idiot. What facts do you want?  I am happy to oblige progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: Tell us the other factors that are causing warming/cooling. Which would you like to learn more about?  Solar irradience? Milankovic Cycles?  ENSO? Plate techtonics?  Volcanic emissions? Particulate aerosols? You were the one claiming that "other factors" had caused the arctic icecap to decrease - yet you say the earth is not warming!  Wat are these other "factors" besides global warming that are causing the acrtic icecap to decrease? progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: Tell us the percentages co2 is making it warmer. If it is 0.5 degrees over the baseline in the last 16 years from start to finish, then what percentage of that 0 degrees was caused by co2 and what was the percentages of the other factors. Would you like to rewrite that question in English? progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: Would it be cooler without co2. Yes progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: By how much and what temp would it be. By about 33 deg c.  Without the greenhouse effect the earth's surface temperature would be about -18 deg C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect Is there any point to this question? progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: Come on, you know you can do it. We are still waiting for you to tell us what these "other factors" are that have cause the actic ice cap to decrease, global glacial mass balance to decrease and sea levels to rise if it isn't global warming. What are these "other factors"? Please tell us.

lol that is just funny and sad.

I now know what I am dealing with and I take the cant argue with idiots statement and insert worse here.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:18pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 1:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 12:10pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:58am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:50am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:35am: MOTR wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 11:09am: Yes, they underestimated the effect of the warming. It's why we can't risk putting too much more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we don't understand all the implications. We shouldn't be playing dice with our children's future. It's why we should be boycotting broadcasters who deliberately hide important facts and aggressively work against us taking action. You obsess over co2 way too much. Go look at the other factors. WHat are the "other factors"?!?! You told us on another thread that there were "other drivers" which are responsible for the observed sea level rise, decrease in global glacial mass balance and decrease of the arctic ice cap which were not related to temperature rise - because you claim that temperature is not rising. When asked to explain that - you naturally ran away. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1350597936/122#122 Could you tell us what these "other factors" you refer to now are? Or will you just  run away again? If you dont know how to research, then I am not about to give you the answer. I am happy to wait till you come up with something other than just 1 factor. Stop obsessing about co2 and you might learn something. For instance, the way you and others go on, the increase in temp from baseline is 100% co2. Is it to you or is it other factors combined. Oh look!!!! It is the I HAVE BEEN CAUGHT TELLING LIES BUT AM TOO GUTLESS TO ADMIT IT answer!!!! Ver poor form Progs.  Very poor. Come on Progs, man up.  What are these "other factors".  Please enlighten us. Explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising. What are the "other factor" causing these observed results? You made the claim.  Please elaborate.  Because at the moment - it looks like you are just a sad, ignorant Alan Jones fan who has been caught making things up. If you cant handle it, then P off. The best way to learn something is to get a complicated task and research it. Have it told to you, you will not learn in the same way. Now if you think you know so much about climate change, then give some other factors that cause climate change. Give us the numbers in regard to percentage of recent temperature change caused by co2, ..... other factors. Tell us what percentage of the sea ice loss is caused by co2 and other factors. BTW your question. Once you figure other factors, you would have a better answer to your question. Not until you give other factors. Please explain to us why - if as you say, the earth has not warmed for 16 years - why arctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded, we global glacial mass balance is decreasing and why sea levels are rising. What are the "other factors" causing these observed results? What are these "factors" you want "figured in"? You made the claim.  Please elaborate. What are these "other factors" you claim are responsible for the observed phenomena of recent decades if it isn't global warming? It is obvious you have been caught making things up.  Why don't you just man up and admit it? Or explain what these strange and mysterious "factors" are you keep bleating on about? You keep making the claim you know about climate change. Well prove it. Stop with the co2 obsession and start giving he facts. Otherwise you are just a useful idiot. Tell us the other factors that are causing warming/cooling. Tell us the percentages co2 is making it warmer. If it is 0.5 degrees over the baseline in the last 16 years from start to finish, then what percentage of that 0 degrees was caused by co2 and what was the percentages of the other factors. Would it be cooler without co2. By how much and what temp would it be. Come on, you know you can do it. you are the one citing other factors .. it's up to you to say what those factors are dipsheat.... how can he research something that you made up? you want to use it as an excuse, support your argument, otherwise your just being a gutless coward ... Your words: You obsess over co2 way too much. Go look at the other factors. What are these "other factors" you are referring to?

please don't confuse me with progs ... the man makes bozo the clown look like Einstein

John Smith wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:33pm:

please don't confuse me with progs ... the man makes bozo the clown look like Einstein

Oopp!!

My profound apologies. 

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 8:24pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: You keep making the claim you know about climate change. No - I haven't made that claim.  But I will claim to know far more about it than you do progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: Well prove it.  I think anyone reading this thread will see it is pretty obvious progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: Stop with the co2 obsession and start giving he facts. Otherwise you are just a useful idiot. What facts do you want?  I am happy to oblige progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: Tell us the other factors that are causing warming/cooling. Which would you like to learn more about?  Solar irradience? Milankovic Cycles?  ENSO? Plate techtonics?  Volcanic emissions? Particulate aerosols? You were the one claiming that "other factors" had caused the arctic icecap to decrease - yet you say the earth is not warming!  Wat are these other "factors" besides global warming that are causing the acrtic icecap to decrease? progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: Tell us the percentages co2 is making it warmer. If it is 0.5 degrees over the baseline in the last 16 years from start to finish, then what percentage of that 0 degrees was caused by co2 and what was the percentages of the other factors. Would you like to rewrite that question in English? progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: Would it be cooler without co2. Yes progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: By how much and what temp would it be. By about 33 deg c.  Without the greenhouse effect the earth's surface temperature would be about -18 deg C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect Is there any point to this question? progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 8:04pm: Come on, you know you can do it. We are still waiting for you to tell us what these "other factors" are that have cause the actic ice cap to decrease, global glacial mass balance to decrease and sea levels to rise if it isn't global warming. What are these "other factors"? Please tell us. lol that is just funny and sad. I now know what I am dealing with and I take the cant argue with idiots statement and insert worse here.

We are still waiting for you to tell us what these "other factors" are that have cause the actic ice cap to decrease, global glacial mass balance to decrease and sea levels to rise if it isn't global warming.

What are these "other factors"?

Interesting read. Take out of it what you may. Not you rabbit. Indoctrination of your depth is too strong. Your obvious obsession with co2, especially thinking the earth would be 33degrees cooler without it is just astonishing

The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming. Last week we explosively revealed a 16-year 'pause' in rising temperatures - triggering a bitter debate. You decide what the real facts are...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html

Don't try to avoid answering ... what are the other factors? You bought them up and it's up to you to support your argument ...

your so full of it ...

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 9:26pm:

Interesting read. Take out of it what you may. Not you rabbit. Indoctrination of your depth is too strong. Your obvious obsession with co2, especially thinking the earth would be 33degrees cooler without it is just astonishing The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming. Last week we explosively revealed a 16-year 'pause' in rising temperatures - triggering a bitter debate. You decide what the real facts are... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html

We are still waiting for you to tell us what these "other factors" are that have cause the actic ice cap to decrease, global glacial mass balance to decrease and sea levels to rise if it isn't global warming.

What are these "other factors"?

If you want to use David Rose of the Daily Mail as your source, fine - but please point out for us what these "other factors" are.

Could you do that please?

Do you have anything to say?  Or are you just clinging desperately to the opinions of "entertainers" like Rose and Jones?

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21^st, 2012 at 9:26pm:

Interesting read. Take out of it what you may. Not you rabbit. Indoctrination of your depth is too strong. Your obvious obsession with co2, especially thinking the earth would be 33degrees cooler without it is just astonishing The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming. Last week we explosively revealed a 16-year 'pause' in rising temperatures - triggering a bitter debate. You decide what the real facts are... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html

Hardly an interesting read, progs. It's just a repetition of the many canards that circulate the denier blogosphere.

What astounds me is that you don't understand even the basics of climate science.

MOTR wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2012 at 3:05am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 9:26pm: Interesting read. Take out of it what you may. Not you rabbit. Indoctrination of your depth is too strong. Your obvious obsession with co2, especially thinking the earth would be 33degrees cooler without it is just astonishing The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming. Last week we explosively revealed a 16-year 'pause' in rising temperatures - triggering a bitter debate. You decide what the real facts are... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html Hardly an interesting read, progs. It's just a repetition of the many canards that circulate the denier blogosphere. What astounds me is that you don't understand even the basics of climate science.

Oh, ditto for you. Indoctrination of your depth is too strong. Your obvious obsession with co2, ......

Maybe you could help rabbit out with that 33degrees cooler thing and the little problem of not knowing anything other than co2 that can change temperature.

BTW what temperature would the earth be without co2?

That's pretty much what I was taught at school. Honestly, progs, you're the first person I've ever heard dispute it. How cold do you reckon it would be?

BTW, Rabbitoh has identified a number of climate forcings in his discussions with you about climate change. None of them fit with what we are seeing today. It is ridiculous for you to suggest he is ignoring them. How about you tell us how it is possible for the Arctic to be losing ice mass if the planet is not warming.

MOTR wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2012 at 5:34am:

That's pretty much what I was taught at school. Honestly, progs, you're the first person I've ever heard dispute it. How cold do you reckon it would be? BTW, Rabbitoh has identified a number of climate forcings in his discussions with you about climate change. None of them fit with what we are seeing today. It is ridiculous for you to suggest he is ignoring them. How about you tell us how it is possible for the Arctic to be losing ice mass if the planet is not warming.

So even you are saying the earths temp would be 33 degrees cooler without co2. Can you confirm that is what you are saying.

I have a better idea than boycotting advertisers. Lets just boycott the boycotters!!!!  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

I'm not sure why you are making Rabbitoh out to be a dill when it's what they teach at Colombia University.

The Climate System
EESC 2100 Spring 2007
Text by Yochanan Kushnir, 2000.



Quote:

Effective temperature. By absorbing the incoming solar radiation, the Earth warms up, like a black body (see radiative heat transfer) and its temperature rises. If the Earth would have had no atmosphere or ocean, as is the case for example on the moon, it would get very warm on the sunlit face of the planet and much colder than we experience presently, on the dark side (the little warmth on the dark side would come from the limited amount of heat stored in the ground from the previous daytime - this is, to some extent, what we experience in a cloud-free, land locked desert climate). All heated objects must emit electromagnetic radiation, particularly so if they are surrounded by empty space. This radiation is referred to as outgoing. As long as the incoming radiative flux is larger than the outgoing, the radiated object will continue to warm, and its temperature will continue to increase. This in turn will result in an increase in the outgoing radiation (according to the Stefan-Boltzman law the outgoing radiation increases faster than the temperature). At some point the object will emit as much radiation as the amount incoming and a radiative equilibrium (or balance) will be reached. Using what we have learned about radiative heat transfer and some geometric calculation we can calculate the equilibrium temperature of an object if we know the amount of incoming energy. Here is how we do that in the case of a planet rotating around the Sun: First let us denote the solar radiative flux at the top of the planets atmosphere by So (for solar constant) and the albedo of the planet by a. Then let us figure out the total amount of radiation absorbed by the planet. To overcome the difficulty posed by the fact that the planets are spherical and their surface tilts with respect to the incoming radiation, note that the amount distributed over the sphere is equal the amount that would be collected on the planets surface if it was a disk (with the same radius as the sphere), placed perpendicular to the sunlight. If the planet's radius is R the area of that disk is πR2. Thus: heat absorbed by planet = (1 - a) πR2So The total heat radiated from the planet is equal to the energy flux implied by its temperature, Te(from the Stefan-Boltzman law) times the entire surface of the planet or: heat radiated from planet = (4πR2) σT4 In radiative balance we thus have: (4πR2 ) σTe4 = (1 - a) πR2So Solving this equation for temperature we obtain: Te = [(1-Aa)So / 4σ 1/4 We have added a subscript e to the temperature to emphasize that this would be the temperature at the surface of the planet if it had no atmosphere. It is referred to as the effective temperature of the planet. According to this calculation, the effective temperature of Earth is about 255 K (or -18 °C). With this temperature the Earth radiation will be centered on a wavelength of about 11 μm, well within the range of infrared (IR) radiation. Because of the spectral properties of the Sun and Earth radiation we tend to refer to them as "shortwave" and "longwave" radiation, respectively.

MOTR wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2012 at 6:22am:

I'm not sure why you are making Rabbitoh out to be a dill when it's what they teach at Colombia University. The Climate System EESC 2100 Spring 2007 Text by Yochanan Kushnir, 2000. Quote: Effective temperature. By absorbing the incoming solar radiation, the Earth warms up, like a black body (see radiative heat transfer) and its temperature rises. If the Earth would have had no atmosphere or ocean, as is the case for example on the moon, it would get very warm on the sunlit face of the planet and much colder than we experience presently, on the dark side (the little warmth on the dark side would come from the limited amount of heat stored in the ground from the previous daytime - this is, to some extent, what we experience in a cloud-free, land locked desert climate). All heated objects must emit electromagnetic radiation, particularly so if they are surrounded by empty space. This radiation is referred to as outgoing. As long as the incoming radiative flux is larger than the outgoing, the radiated object will continue to warm, and its temperature will continue to increase. This in turn will result in an increase in the outgoing radiation (according to the Stefan-Boltzman law the outgoing radiation increases faster than the temperature). At some point the object will emit as much radiation as the amount incoming and a radiative equilibrium (or balance) will be reached. Using what we have learned about radiative heat transfer and some geometric calculation we can calculate the equilibrium temperature of an object if we know the amount of incoming energy. Here is how we do that in the case of a planet rotating around the Sun: First let us denote the solar radiative flux at the top of the planets atmosphere by So (for solar constant) and the albedo of the planet by a. Then let us figure out the total amount of radiation absorbed by the planet. To overcome the difficulty posed by the fact that the planets are spherical and their surface tilts with respect to the incoming radiation, note that the amount distributed over the sphere is equal the amount that would be collected on the planets surface if it was a disk (with the same radius as the sphere), placed perpendicular to the sunlight. If the planet's radius is R the area of that disk is πR2. Thus: heat absorbed by planet = (1 - a) πR2So The total heat radiated from the planet is equal to the energy flux implied by its temperature, Te(from the Stefan-Boltzman law) times the entire surface of the planet or: heat radiated from planet = (4πR2) σT4 In radiative balance we thus have: (4πR2 ) σTe4 = (1 - a) πR2So Solving this equation for temperature we obtain: Te = [(1-Aa)So / 4σ 1/4 We have added a subscript e to the temperature to emphasize that this would be the temperature at the surface of the planet if it had no atmosphere. It is referred to as the effective temperature of the planet. According to this calculation, the effective temperature of Earth is about 255 K (or -18 °C). With this temperature the Earth radiation will be centered on a wavelength of about 11 μm, well within the range of infrared (IR) radiation. Because of the spectral properties of the Sun and Earth radiation we tend to refer to them as "shortwave" and "longwave" radiation, respectively.

There is the problem I have been trying to point out. Just go with this, trust me.

You obsess about co2.

Now with that knowledge, look at your schooling again.

Then maybe you might get around to telling us what the temperature of earth would be without co2. Do it in a static model, not try to figure out accumulative effects as there are going to be some.

MOTR wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2012 at 6:22am:

I'm not sure why you are making Rabbitoh out to be a dill when it's what they teach at Colombia University. The Climate System EESC 2100 Spring 2007 Text by Yochanan Kushnir, 2000. Quote: Effective temperature. By absorbing the incoming solar radiation, the Earth warms up, like a black body (see radiative heat transfer) and its temperature rises. If the Earth would have had no atmosphere or ocean, as is the case for example on the moon, it would get very warm on the sunlit face of the planet and much colder than we experience presently, on the dark side (the little warmth on the dark side would come from the limited amount of heat stored in the ground from the previous daytime - this is, to some extent, what we experience in a cloud-free, land locked desert climate). All heated objects must emit electromagnetic radiation, particularly so if they are surrounded by empty space. This radiation is referred to as outgoing. As long as the incoming radiative flux is larger than the outgoing, the radiated object will continue to warm, and its temperature will continue to increase. This in turn will result in an increase in the outgoing radiation (according to the Stefan-Boltzman law the outgoing radiation increases faster than the temperature). At some point the object will emit as much radiation as the amount incoming and a radiative equilibrium (or balance) will be reached. Using what we have learned about radiative heat transfer and some geometric calculation we can calculate the equilibrium temperature of an object if we know the amount of incoming energy. Here is how we do that in the case of a planet rotating around the Sun: First let us denote the solar radiative flux at the top of the planets atmosphere by So (for solar constant) and the albedo of the planet by a. Then let us figure out the total amount of radiation absorbed by the planet. To overcome the difficulty posed by the fact that the planets are spherical and their surface tilts with respect to the incoming radiation, note that the amount distributed over the sphere is equal the amount that would be collected on the planets surface if it was a disk (with the same radius as the sphere), placed perpendicular to the sunlight. If the planet's radius is R the area of that disk is πR2. Thus: heat absorbed by planet = (1 - a) πR2So The total heat radiated from the planet is equal to the energy flux implied by its temperature, Te(from the Stefan-Boltzman law) times the entire surface of the planet or: heat radiated from planet = (4πR2) σT4 In radiative balance we thus have: (4πR2 ) σTe4 = (1 - a) πR2So Solving this equation for temperature we obtain: Te = [(1-Aa)So / 4σ 1/4 We have added a subscript e to the temperature to emphasize that this would be the temperature at the surface of the planet if it had no atmosphere. It is referred to as the effective temperature of the planet. According to this calculation, the effective temperature of Earth is about 255 K (or -18 °C). With this temperature the Earth radiation will be centered on a wavelength of about 11 μm, well within the range of infrared (IR) radiation. Because of the spectral properties of the Sun and Earth radiation we tend to refer to them as "shortwave" and "longwave" radiation, respectively.

Speaking of the 33 degrees. There is a discussion going on that no-one seems to want to have. I dont know enough about it to comment on it, but you may be interested. May not.

------------------------------
Contrary to popular myth this “33 degrees” is not observed, empirical fact at all. The book’s authors and converts to our science say it is the product of a botched equation by NASA’s Dr. James E. Hansen from the 1980′s. Currently, my article on this is doing the rounds.

Dr. Pierre Latour earlier this year proved that Hansen’s “33 degrees” is the result of a fatal mixing of a scalar temperature value with a vector temperature value (not permitted in either math or physics).  That no one questioned this till we ‘Slayers’ did suggests it is perhaps among the most successful elements of the GHE fraud. Pointedly, it duped two top skeptic climatologists, Dick Lindzen and Roy Spencer, among other leading skeptics, who never questioned its validity and when challenged opted to play “follow my leader.”

It appears Lindzen first swallowed the bogus “33 degrees” number at least since March 1990, as proven by his paper ‘Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming’ AMS, Vol 71. In September 2010 on his blog Spencer admitted he merely followed Lindzen’s lead. But Spencer went further and actually asserted (crassly) that  Hansen’s  “33 degrees” number offers a “real-world observed radiative-convective equilibrium.”

But both Spencer and Lindzen are shown, since March 2012, to have circled the wagons obstinately avoiding the issue. Despite our urging neither will apply due diligence to verify the providence of the number. But if they had looked more closely at the “33 degrees” from the outset they would have seen that the first value Hansen used to obtain it is a 3-D measure (a vector) of the infrared radiation emitted by Earth back into outer space (255K). Hansen then put that alongside a 2-D measure (288K), which is an average of surface weather stations (a scalar). That’s how Hansen and government climate science “got” it’s 33 degrees greenhouse gas effect.

But anyone trained in higher math or physics knows this is not a permissible procedure as it’s the equivalent of adding apples to oranges

more
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/now-australians-take-up-challenge-in-debating-dodgy-greenhouse-gas-physics/