And heres the scientific method they used to come to that 95% conclusion  ;D ;D ;D






Yesterday, a reporter asked me how the IPCC came up with the 95% number.  Here is the exchange that I had with him:


Reporter:  I’m hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are “95 percent certain” that human activities are largely to cause for global warming, what does that mean? How is 95 percent calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90 in 2007 to 95 percent now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference?

JC:  The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors.  The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain.  How they can justify this is beyond me.

Reporter:  You mean they sit around and say, “How certain are you?” “Oh, I feel about 95 percent certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I’d say we’re about 95 percent certain.” Please tell me it’s more rigorous than that.

JC:  Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%.

Reporter:  So it really is as subjective as that?

JC:  As far as I know, this is what goes on.  All this has never been documented.

Link? Was it that phoney tony fellow assaulter of women Piers Ackerman or Dolt? Or just another confused sour prick form News lmd? Or you just made it up. Okey doky. ;D ;D ;D

This is nothing more than a crude attempt by the IPCC to usurp the holy Bible*.

*also includes other holy books that have a loose use by date for the world and its inhabitants.

Something that may or may not be a quote and is posted without names or sources  ;D ;D ;D

Why he is keeping the link secret

Andrew Bolt Opinion

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_more_sure_about_less/

____ wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

Why he is keeping the link secret Andrew Bolt Opinion http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_more_sure_about_less/

OH LOL give me ten dollars I picked it as Doltism. ;D ;D ;D

Yep I.B rejects the science of deadly climate change for the religion of Doltism

Haha, idiots think Bolt wrote it, Bolt is the devil in their climate religion, no it was from one of tens of thousands of other reputable scientists that think AGW is a bunch of crapola  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

Haha, idiots think Bolt wrote it, Bolt is the devil in their climate religion, no it was from one of tens of thousands of other reputable scientists that think AGW is a bunch of crapola  ;D

in another ten years they will be saying...

hehehehehehe

we got it all wrong...

who do we send the BILL too?

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

Haha, idiots think Bolt wrote it, Bolt is the devil in their climate religion, no it was from one of tens of thousands of other reputable scientists that think AGW is a bunch of crapola  ;D

Yet you still haven't supplied links to these reputable 'climate' scientists.

Meanwhile these sceptics refute basic science.


http://youtu.be/kwtt51gvaJQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

cods wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 10:06am: Haha, idiots think Bolt wrote it, Bolt is the devil in their climate religion, no it was from one of tens of thousands of other reputable scientists that think AGW is a bunch of crapola  ;D in another ten years they will be saying... hehehehehehe we got it all wrong... who do we send the BILL too?

Another fool with a less than basic education that thinks she knows more than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. ::) a definite pattern within the conga line.

The IPCC Report is extremely conservative. It understates the risk. Virtually any climatologist will echo that sentiment.

What on Earth do climate hysterics want links for?, they won't read them.  ::)

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

Haha, idiots think Bolt wrote it, Bolt is the devil in their climate religion, no it was from one of tens of thousands of other reputable scientists that think AGW is a bunch of crapola  ;D

Here's a self-proclaimed reputable climate scientist who also awarded himself a Nobel Prize:

Quote:

What do you get when you take a man who lies about being a climate specialist, who knows nothing at all about climate science, and introduce him to Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the topic of Presisdent Obama’s birth certificate? You get a man who lies about Obama’s birth certificate and knows nothing at all about Obama’s birth. If you want to know how little Monckton knows about climate science, consider this fact reported by dedmogblog.com, that “Monckton also cites the Cambrian Period as proof plants love carbon dioxide, although it was a time period where there were no land plants.”

http://ww2.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Christopher-Monckton-.jpg

http://www.politicususa.com/2012/05/29/christopher-monckton-man-lies-credentials-questions-obamas.html

He's an expert in PhotoShop too.

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

What on Earth do climate hysterics want links for?, they won't read them.  ::)

That's more than a bit of pot kettle black matey.

I see no evidence that your team read anything that is posted, including linked material.

In fact, that would be hypocrisy you saying that.

skippy. wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

cods wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 10:15am: Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 10:06am: Haha, idiots think Bolt wrote it, Bolt is the devil in their climate religion, no it was from one of tens of thousands of other reputable scientists that think AGW is a bunch of crapola  ;D in another ten years they will be saying... hehehehehehe we got it all wrong... who do we send the BILL too? Another fool with a less than basic education that thinks she knows more than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. ::) a definite pattern within the conga line.

she has more knowledge than a PhD on the subject simply because she is a liberal voter ;D

Ha ha global warming is real because you can post a picture of a man with funny eyes, you could get a job with the IPCC with that sort of skill set  ;D
One day one of these global warming hysterics will actually provide scientific PROOF instead of just the views of a room full of overpaid bludgers that depend on global warming to keep their jobs  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:01pm:

Ha ha global warming is real because you can post a picture of a man with funny eyes, ...

It's highly probable that the globe is warming and that human activities are substantially responsible. Numerous studies have shown that the vast majority of the best qualified agree on that.

I can't pretend to know better. Evidently, you can.

I'm 95% sure that 100% of the alarmists will ignore the fact that 95% is not 100%.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:44pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 2:01pm: Ha ha global warming is real because you can post a picture of a man with funny eyes, ... It's highly probable that the globe is warming and that human activities are substantially responsible. Numerous studies have shown that the vast majority of the best qualified agree on that. I can't pretend to know better. Evidently, you can.

Again all you are providing is yet another case of x amount of people say man made global warming is real so you should believe it too, opinion is not science ... sh#t a billion people believe in allah too, should I convert to Islam  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

# wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 3:44pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 2:01pm: Ha ha global warming is real because you can post a picture of a man with funny eyes, ... It's highly probable that the globe is warming and that human activities are substantially responsible. Numerous studies have shown that the vast majority of the best qualified agree on that. I can't pretend to know better. Evidently, you can. Again all you are providing is yet another case of x amount of people say man made global warming is real so you should believe it too.

Exactly.

Sounds more like a religion, rather than science.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

I'm 95% sure that 100% of the alarmists will ignore the fact that 95% is not 100%.

Unfortunately, we'll only be 100% certain after the event. The event might well be catastrophic. That's why we have risk management.

There's little risk of the worst case. You want to gamble that there's no risk.

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

... all you are providing is yet another case of x amount of people say man made global warming is real ...

No, I'm saying that the majority opinion is the highest probability. You're gambling on your belief system.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:54pm:

... Sounds more like a religion, rather than science.

No, your denial of the opinion of the best qualified scientists sounds more like religion.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

Unfortunately, we'll only be 100% certain after the event.

Incorrect.  Even if the world fries tomorrow, there will not be 100% certainty that it was caused by humans.


# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

You want to gamble that there's no risk.

Incorrect.  I have no idea where you're getting that from.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 3:54pm: ... Sounds more like a religion, rather than science. No, your denial of the opinion of the best qualified scientists sounds more like religion.

Incorrect, once again (don't you ever get tired of being wrong).

I've never denied "the opinion of the best qualified scientists".

Seems like all this CO2 is going to your head.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

I'm 95% sure that 100% of the alarmists will ignore the fact that 95% is not 100%.

I see what you did there.

---

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:20pm:

... Seems like all this CO2 is going to your head.

Still trolling, young simpleton.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 3:52pm: I'm 95% sure that 100% of the alarmists will ignore the fact that 95% is not 100%. I see what you did there.

Demanding 100% certainty? Is that honest?

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 3:52pm: I'm 95% sure that 100% of the alarmists will ignore the fact that 95% is not 100%. I see what you did there. Demanding 100% certainty? Is that honest?

It's not a demand.
Rather highlighting the fact that if they aren't 100% certain they could be wrong.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:31pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:20pm: ... Seems like all this CO2 is going to your head. Still trolling, young simpleton.

au contraire

You are the one making false accusations, and then running away when confronted.

"You want to gamble that there's no risk."

" ... your denial of the opinion of the best qualified scientists ... "

Really? Source?  Links?

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 10:38am:

The IPCC Report is extremely conservative. It understates the risk. Virtually any climatologist will echo that sentiment.

so the real figure is actual 145% certain?  and the 2degree figure is actually 7 degrees?

cmon muso.  you can do better than that.  the IPCC isn't conservative at all.  it is merely INCOMPETENT.  or how do you account for them being wrong 100% of the time?

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 3:52pm: I'm 95% sure that 100% of the alarmists will ignore the fact that 95% is not 100%. I see what you did there. Demanding 100% certainty? Is that honest?

I'm certainly not demanding 100%.

Who is?

You seem to make all these accusations, and then run for the hills when asked to explain.

The irony is, you have the audacity to call other people trolls.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:37pm:

muso wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 10:38am: The IPCC Report is extremely conservative. It understates the risk. Virtually any climatologist will echo that sentiment. so the real figure is actual 145% certain?  and the 2degree figure is actually 7 degrees? cmon muso.  you can do better than that.  the IPCC isn't conservative at all.  it is merely INCOMPETENT.  or how do you account for them being wrong 100% of the time?

The IPCC has erred on the conservative side. A great many papers that predicted a higher temperature increase were not included. Many that predicted lower increases were included, including some that are generally regarded as having little credibility. There is political pressure by countries such as China to understate the findings.

Some climate scientists suggest that the IPCC has outlived its
usefulness.

That said, the confidence that if you drop a stone it will hit the ground is pretty close to 95%. Usually we talk about a 95% confidence interval. It's a kind of "gold standard".

How many samples would be expected to fall outside predicted ranges for a 95% confidence limit?  Give me an answer in percent.

Now please back up that assertion that  the IPCC have been  wrong 100% of the time.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif

Doesn't  that show that the figure of 100% at least, is incorrect?

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:35pm:

# wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 3:52pm: I'm 95% sure that 100% of the alarmists will ignore the fact that 95% is not 100%. I see what you did there. Demanding 100% certainty? Is that honest? ... highlighting the fact that if they aren't 100% certain they could be wrong.

All things are possible. The question comes down to probabilities.

You're gambling against a 95% probability. Is that a rational bet?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:39pm:

# wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 3:52pm: I'm 95% sure that 100% of the alarmists will ignore the fact that 95% is not 100%. I see what you did there. Demanding 100% certainty? Is that honest? I'm certainly not demanding 100%. ...

You said
Quote:

... the fact that 95% is not 100%.

If you were not demanding 100%, then what were you saying?

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:39pm: # wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 3:52pm: I'm 95% sure that 100% of the alarmists will ignore the fact that 95% is not 100%. I see what you did there. Demanding 100% certainty? Is that honest? I'm certainly not demanding 100%. ... You said Quote: ... the fact that 95% is not 100%. If you were not demanding 100%, then what were you saying?

I was saying 95% is not 100%

Not sure how you missed that.

I would like to know where this 95% comes from.  Given that temperature has stalled for 17 years, every model has failed comprehensively and every other prediction has fallen over, surely the degree of confidence should have FALLEN and fallen dramatically.  if they hade even gone from 90% back to 85% it would have looked at least a little credible, but INCREASED confidence in the face of such massive failure shows it to be what we all know it is.  WANK.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:57pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:35pm: # wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 3:52pm: I'm 95% sure that 100% of the alarmists will ignore the fact that 95% is not 100%. I see what you did there. Demanding 100% certainty? Is that honest? ... highlighting the fact that if they aren't 100% certain they could be wrong. All things are possible. The question comes down to probabilities. You're gambling against a 95% probability. Is that a rational bet?

But we aren't dealing in absolute and specific probabilities.
We are dealing with vague definitions, with increased error bands that's all.
The people giving us the 95% probability have almost no reliability. Especially when they have graduates helping author they're papers and claiming to be the world top experts. I especially don't like the cherry picking of data, as seen in Burt Rutan's analysis. No matter which way you play it they twist things for specific point of view. No matter how much you hate them the NIPCC was created specifically to keep their BS in check.

(Please don't if you were going to, get us started on funding bias)

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

... Really? Source?  Links?

History.

You've had a lot of experience trolling, haven't you young simpleton?

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:54pm:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif Doesn't  that show that the figure of 100% at least, is incorrect?

Can we be certain that the ocean rising is not natural at all? Besides if the IPCC says it isn't?

I would love to see an argument for and against the ocean rise being man made.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

# wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:39pm: # wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 3:52pm: I'm 95% sure that 100% of the alarmists will ignore the fact that 95% is not 100%. I see what you did there. Demanding 100% certainty? Is that honest? I'm certainly not demanding 100%. ... You said Quote: ... the fact that 95% is not 100%. If you were not demanding 100%, then what were you saying? I was saying 95% is not 100% ...

To what end?

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:05pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:36pm: ... Really? Source?  Links? History. You've had a lot of experience trolling, haven't you young simpleton?

Not one single link, huh?

You searched and searched, but came up with nothing.

I trust you've learned a lesson.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:02pm: # wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:39pm: # wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 3:52pm: I'm 95% sure that 100% of the alarmists will ignore the fact that 95% is not 100%. I see what you did there. Demanding 100% certainty? Is that honest? I'm certainly not demanding 100%. ... You said Quote: ... the fact that 95% is not 100%. If you were not demanding 100%, then what were you saying? I was saying 95% is not 100% ... To what end?

My comment was quite clear.

Take the time to read it again.

I'll type it slowly this time, so you can keep up:

"I'm 95% sure that 100% of the alarmists will ignore the fact that 95% is not 100%."

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

... Can we be certain ...

Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

... I'll type it slowly this time, so you can keep up: ...

Trolling again, young simpleton.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:06pm: ... Can we be certain ... Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest?

It was a question, not a demand.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

# wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:36pm: ... Really? Source?  Links? History. You've had a lot of experience trolling, haven't you young simpleton? ... You searched and searched, ... ...

Trolls specialise in wasting time so, no, I didn't search. See history.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

# wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:09pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:06pm: ... Can we be certain ... Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest? It was a question, ...

A question to what end?

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:09pm: ... I'll type it slowly this time, so you can keep up: ... Trolling again, young simpleton.

Let's take a look at what's happening here:

1. You make false accusations about me.

2. When asked to provide evidence, you either change the subject, ignore the request, or  say "History".

3. When things are explained to you and you still don't understand what is being said you resort to name calling.

4. I have continually said on this forum that AGW may indeed be happening, and that I have no problem with Governments taking precautionary measures.

5. Despite all of this, you continue to call me a 'troll' and a 'simpleton'.

I'll let others be the judge.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:06pm: ... Can we be certain ... Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest?

What I mean is this:

Quote:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2007, “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 mm per year.” This translates to a 100-year rise of only 7 inches and 12 inches, far below the dire predictions of the climate alarmists. But three millimeters is about the thickness of two dimes. Can scientists really measure a change in sea level over the course of a year, averaged across the world, which is two dimes thick?

How can they measure minuscule rises in height of a moving surface across the entire world ?

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:10pm: # wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:09pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:06pm: ... Can we be certain ... Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest? It was a question, ... A question to what end?

rhetorical question:

A question asked merely for effect with no answer expected. The answer may be obvious or immediately provided by the questioner.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:20pm:

# wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:10pm: # wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:09pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:06pm: ... Can we be certain ... Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest? It was a question, ... A question to what end? rhetorical question: A question asked merely for effect with no answer expected. The answer may be obvious or immediately provided by the questioner.

Sounds like you're backpedalling (and yes, I know it wasn't your question, but you have taken up the baton). Backpedalling with a baton; pardon the mixed metaphor.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:20pm: # wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:10pm: # wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:09pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:06pm: ... Can we be certain ... Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest? It was a question, ... A question to what end? rhetorical question: A question asked merely for effect with no answer expected. The answer may be obvious or immediately provided by the questioner. Sounds like you're backpedalling (and yes, I know it wasn't your question, but you have taken up the baton). Backpedalling with a baton; pardon the mixed metaphor.

I'll just add it to your list of false accusations against me.

At least there was no name-calling this time.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

# wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:09pm: ... I'll type it slowly this time, so you can keep up: ... Trolling again, young simpleton. Let's take a look at what's happening here: 1. You make false accusations about me.

What false accusations?


greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

2. When asked to provide evidence, you either change the subject, ignore the request, or  say "History".

If the evidence is in the history, what more is to be said? Like most trolls, you post a lot. I don't necessarily see every post.


greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

3. When things are explained to you and you still don't understand what is being said you resort to name calling.

When you repeat drivel, I call it as I see it.


greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

4. I have continually said on this forum that AGW may indeed be happening, and that I have no problem with Governments taking precautionary measures.

You have repeatedly said such things. Your behaviour is not consistent with your words.


greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

5. Despite all of this, you continue to call me a 'troll' and a 'simpleton'.

As I said, I call it as I see it.


greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

I'll let others be the judge.

Indeed

To be clear, I regard you as a teenage troll who is using this forum for onanistic "fun".

;) ;) ;)

Too much winking will make you go blind.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

You have repeatedly said such things.

So many times, I've lost count.



# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

Your behaviour is not consistent with your words.

You make hasty assumptions; that's where the problem lies.

Just because I'm not convinced that AGW is happening (although I'm not certain), it doesn't mean I object to precautionary action.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:20pm:

# wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:09pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:06pm: ... Can we be certain ... Can we be certain of anything? Is a demand for certainty sane? Is it honest? What I mean is this: Quote: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2007, “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 mm per year.” This translates to a 100-year rise of only 7 inches and 12 inches, far below the dire predictions of the climate alarmists. But three millimeters is about the thickness of two dimes. Can scientists really measure a change in sea level over the course of a year, averaged across the world, which is two dimes thick? How can they measure minuscule rises in height of a moving surface across the entire world ?

I was also sceptical of this, which is why I read the technical specifications for the Jason 2 Satellite (to be specific, the Poseidon-3 precision altimeter installed on that satellite). There is a thread dedicated to this. Three independant agencies came up with a precision of between 0.4 to 0.6mm in terms of annual increase in sea level change.

If you are genuinely sceptical, I suggest that you do the same.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

To be clear, I regard you as a teenage troll who is using this forum for onanistic "fun".

To be clear, I couldn't care less what you regard me as.

Moreover, I'm not adverse to onanism or fun.

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

I was also sceptical of this, which is why I read the technical specifications for the Jason 2 Satellite (to be specific, the Poseidon-3 precision altimeter installed on that satellite). There is a thread dedicated to this. Three independant agencies came up with a precision of between 0.4 to 0.6mm in terms of annual increase in sea level change. If you are genuinely sceptical, I suggest that you do the same.

Cheers I'll have a look.
Of course I'm genuine!

---

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:02pm:

muso wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:56pm: I was also sceptical of this, which is why I read the technical specifications for the Jason 2 Satellite (to be specific, the Poseidon-3 precision altimeter installed on that satellite). There is a thread dedicated to this. Three independant agencies came up with a precision of between 0.4 to 0.6mm in terms of annual increase in sea level change. If you are genuinely sceptical, I suggest that you do the same. Cheers I'll have a look. Of course I'm genuine!

Sorry. Good to hear it.

Looks like crazy climate kooks want us to believe in disastrous man made global warming for exactly the same reason as crazy religious kooks want us to believe in their own crazy religion ... ie. because we said so  ;D 
Don't worry oh mighty science I have not given up on you, I have not succumbed to mass hysteria in your place  :)

When you can actually make intelligent comments about the reports, people will start to take you seriously. Until then, you just add to the noise.

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 7:28pm:

Looks like crazy climate kooks want us to believe in disastrous man made global warming for exactly the same reason as crazy religious kooks want us to believe in their own crazy religion ... ie. because we said so

That's exactly right.

"We're 95% sure ... 97% of scientists agree ... "

Are we dealing with maths or science?

Faith, more like it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:03pm:

[highlight]I would like to know where this 95% comes from. [/highlight] Given that temperature has stalled for 17 years, every model has failed comprehensively and every other prediction has fallen over, surely the degree of confidence should have FALLEN and fallen dramatically.  if they hade even gone from 90% back to 85% it would have looked at least a little credible, but INCREASED confidence in the face of such massive failure shows it to be what we all know it is.  WANK.

Does anyone have an answer yet, how is this 'factoid' arrived at. What is the methodology behind this neatly packaged headline?

Rider wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:03pm: [highlight]I would like to know where this 95% comes from. [/highlight] Given that temperature has stalled for 17 years, every model has failed comprehensively and every other prediction has fallen over, surely the degree of confidence should have FALLEN and fallen dramatically.  if they hade even gone from 90% back to 85% it would have looked at least a little credible, but INCREASED confidence in the face of such massive failure shows it to be what we all know it is.  WANK. Does anyone have an answer yet, how is this 'factoid' arrived at. What is the methodology behind this neatly packaged headline?

Yes.

The answer is:

"if you don't believe in AGW then you are endangering the lives of your kids, and your kids' kids, and their kids, and you will undoubtedly be the cause of the ultimate destruction of the planet Earth.  You just have to believe us, because we know we're right and thus we are better than you. Just trust us on the 95%"

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 7:41pm:

Rider wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 7:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:03pm: [highlight]I would like to know where this 95% comes from. [/highlight] Given that temperature has stalled for 17 years, every model has failed comprehensively and every other prediction has fallen over, surely the degree of confidence should have FALLEN and fallen dramatically.  if they hade even gone from 90% back to 85% it would have looked at least a little credible, but INCREASED confidence in the face of such massive failure shows it to be what we all know it is.  WANK. Does anyone have an answer yet, how is this 'factoid' arrived at. What is the methodology behind this neatly packaged headline? Yes. The answer is: "if you don't believe in AGW then you are endangering the lives of your kids, and your kids' kids, and their kids, and you will undoubtedly be the cause of the ultimate destruction of the planet Earth.  You just have to believe us, because we know we're right and thus we are better than you. Just trust us on the 95%"

Ahhh, but is there a majority consensus of the consensus.... :D

Rider wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 7:48pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 7:41pm: Rider wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 7:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:03pm: [highlight]I would like to know where this 95% comes from. [/highlight] Given that temperature has stalled for 17 years, every model has failed comprehensively and every other prediction has fallen over, surely the degree of confidence should have FALLEN and fallen dramatically.  if they hade even gone from 90% back to 85% it would have looked at least a little credible, but INCREASED confidence in the face of such massive failure shows it to be what we all know it is.  WANK. Does anyone have an answer yet, how is this 'factoid' arrived at. What is the methodology behind this neatly packaged headline? Yes. The answer is: "if you don't believe in AGW then you are endangering the lives of your kids, and your kids' kids, and their kids, and you will undoubtedly be the cause of the ultimate destruction of the planet Earth.  You just have to believe us, because we know we're right and thus we are better than you. Just trust us on the 95%" Ahhh, but is there a majority consensus of the consensus.... :D

Just trust me, OK?

;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 7:52pm:

Rider wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 7:48pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 7:41pm: Rider wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 7:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:03pm: [highlight]I would like to know where this 95% comes from. [/highlight] Given that temperature has stalled for 17 years, every model has failed comprehensively and every other prediction has fallen over, surely the degree of confidence should have FALLEN and fallen dramatically.  if they hade even gone from 90% back to 85% it would have looked at least a little credible, but INCREASED confidence in the face of such massive failure shows it to be what we all know it is.  WANK. Does anyone have an answer yet, how is this 'factoid' arrived at. What is the methodology behind this neatly packaged headline? Yes. The answer is: "if you don't believe in AGW then you are endangering the lives of your kids, and your kids' kids, and their kids, and you will undoubtedly be the cause of the ultimate destruction of the planet Earth.  You just have to believe us, because we know we're right and thus we are better than you. Just trust us on the 95%" Ahhh, but is there a majority consensus of the consensus.... :D Just trust me, OK? ;)

haha well I can't argue with that UN style of logic. At any rate, kids these days get it too easy, they'll need a challenge in the future  ;D

Rider wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 8:06pm:

At any rate, kids these days get it too easy, they'll need a challenge in the future  ;D

Exactly!

I've been saying that for ages.

Every generation has their challenges.

I love my kids to bits, but poo, they'll just have to learn to adapt.

Rider wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:03pm: [highlight]I would like to know where this 95% comes from. [/highlight] Given that temperature has stalled for 17 years, every model has failed comprehensively and every other prediction has fallen over, surely the degree of confidence should have FALLEN and fallen dramatically.  if they hade even gone from 90% back to 85% it would have looked at least a little credible, but INCREASED confidence in the face of such massive failure shows it to be what we all know it is.  WANK. Does anyone have an answer yet, how is this 'factoid' arrived at. What is the methodology behind this neatly packaged headline?

Apparently the only answer put forward so far by global warming cranks as to why we must turn our lives upside down to appease the great god of global warming is this pathetic effort ...








Yesterday, a reporter asked me how the IPCC came up with the 95% number.  Here is the exchange that I had with him:


Reporter:  I’m hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are “95 percent certain” that human activities are largely to cause for global warming, what does that mean? How is 95 percent calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90 in 2007 to 95 percent now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference?

JC:  The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors.  The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain.  How they can justify this is beyond me.

Reporter:  You mean they sit around and say, “How certain are you?” “Oh, I feel about 95 percent certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I’d say we’re about 95 percent certain.” Please tell me it’s more rigorous than that.

JC:  Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%.

Reporter:  So it really is as subjective as that?

JC:  As far as I know, this is what goes on.  All this has never been documented.

They'll be looking back at us in 100 years time and laughing their freakin' heads off.

How many years more can we reasonably expect to live? - and I mean the posters on this blog.  I wonder what they'll be saying 25 years from now.

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

I wonder what they'll be saying 25 years from now.

"Have you heard the new One Direction song?"    :-/

:)

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 8:53pm:

muso wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 8:51pm:   I wonder what they'll be saying 25 years from now. "Have you heard the new One Direction song?"    :-/ :)

You mean the  New Directions hit of 2038 called "The smell of death" ?


Quote:

Already one billion people in the world go hungry every day—that’s one in every seven people. Every year one third of child deaths are caused in part by under-nutrition. World population continues to grow and is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050. To feed this many people and their rising demand for animal products, overall food production must rise by 70% from 2005–07 levels. But a 5°F to 9°F rise in global average temperature could reduce grain yields by 30% to 50%, and global food supplies even more. The combination of decreasing food production in the face of increasing food demand would likely lead to widespread social unrest and hunger —even catastrophic global famine.

http://www.psr.org/resources/climate-change-and-famine.html

Lots of DENIALIST crack pots out tonight.

You can smell the stench of their pathetic ignorance, deranged conspiracy paranoia and individualistic sociopathic greed from many miles.

Like most things there is always a good side, and that's the fact that these ignorant clown freaks aren't in positions of power.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 10:59pm:

You can smell the stench of their pathetic ignorance, deranged conspiracy paranoia and individualistic sociopathic greed from many miles.

1. Do you know what "ignorance" means? How are skeptics "ignorant"?

2. What "conspiracy"?  Can you elaborate?

3. "Greed"?  Please explain.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

... To be clear, I couldn't care less what you regard me as.

I doubt that. Trolling is calculated to offend. You offend me. That matters to you.


greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

Moreover, I'm not adverse to onanism ...

Evidently.

Meanwhile, the bush fire season has started early. I live on the land, so I'll have less time to spend here.

According to the vast majority of the best qualified, global warming will lead to conditions like those responsible for the early start of the bush fire season becoming more common. Global warming; remember that? You treat it as a joke.

If you'd ever helped a neighbour put down stock, still walking around but so badly burned that they won't survive, some on their knees because they've walked out of their hooves, maybe you'd take the issue seriously. Probably not; it's all a game to you.

# wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 7:30am:

If you'd ever helped a neighbour put down stock, still walking around but so badly burned that they won't survive, some on their knees because they've walked out of their hooves, maybe you'd take the issue seriously

Gee thats never happened before  ::)

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 9:36am:

And heres the scientific method they used to come to that 95% conclusion  ;D ;D ;D Yesterday, a reporter asked me how the IPCC came up with the 95% number.  Here is the exchange that I had with him: Reporter:  I’m hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are “95 percent certain” that human activities are largely to cause for global warming, what does that mean? How is 95 percent calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90 in 2007 to 95 percent now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference? JC:  The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors.  The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain.  How they can justify this is beyond me. Reporter:  You mean they sit around and say, “How certain are you?” “Oh, I feel about 95 percent certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I’d say we’re about 95 percent certain.” Please tell me it’s more rigorous than that. JC:  Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%. Reporter:  So it really is as subjective as that? JC:  As far as I know, this is what goes on.  All this has never been documented. [i]Yesterday, a reporter asked me how the IPCC came up with the 95% number.  Here is the exchange that I had with him: Reporter:  I’m hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are “95 percent certain” that human activities are largely to cause for global warming, what does that mean? How is 95 percent calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90 in 2007 to 95 percent now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference? JC:  The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors.  The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain.  How they can justify this is beyond me. Reporter:  You mean they sit around and say, “How certain are you?” “Oh, I feel about 95 percent certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I’d say we’re about 95 percent certain.” Please tell me it’s more rigorous than that. JC:  Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%. Reporter:  So it really is as subjective as that? JC:  As far as I know, this is what goes on.  All this has never been documented.

Yeah its not from science that they get this 95% certainty...??

Its from taking a vote......as simple as hands up.......!!!!!

Quote:

JC:  Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%.

wasn't in the room...but thought I'd guess anyway.

How can governments pass a tax on the air we breath, when the so called specialists say with a vote that its 95% certain.

Shouldn't it be the science that dictates policy rather than a vote based on opinion.......??????

Innocent bystander wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

# wrote on Sep 29th, 2013 at 7:30am: If you'd ever helped a neighbour put down stock, still walking around but so badly burned that they won't survive, some on their knees because they've walked out of their hooves, maybe you'd take the issue seriously Gee thats never happened before  ::)

Who but the most degenerate will do what the best minds warn increases the risk?

# wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 2:21pm:

Who but the most degenerate will do what the best minds warn increases the risk?

Are you saying that anthropogenic co2 emissions are responsible for natural disasters......????

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

# wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 2:21pm: Who but the most degenerate will do what the best minds warn increases the risk? Are you saying that anthropogenic co2 emissions are responsible for natural disasters......????

Are you denying that the best minds warn that global warming, which is substantially anthropogenic, increases the risk?

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

# wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 2:21pm: Who but the most degenerate will do what the best minds warn increases the risk? Are you saying that anthropogenic co2 emissions are responsible for natural disasters......????

nice try....lol

Alteration of the globe's climatic conditions via human induced rises in CO2 emissions cannot be used to explain any individual natural event or disaster.

Its all about intensity and frequency over a stochastically significant time scale/frame Mr Ajax (you know, medium to long trends etc - you know this right?)

Of course you already know this (at least I hope that you do anyway)

One must be very careful when they gallop in here with spin and distorted loaded questions totally defenceless.

One can be slaughtered in public like the lambs of Jacob.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:23pm:

Its all about intensity and frequency over a stochastically significant time scale/frame Mr Ajax (you know, medium to long trends etc - you know this right?)

Are you kidding?

I doubt if he appreciates the distinction between stochastic and deterministic. This is Mr Nowarmingsince1998 you're talking to.  The concept of statistical significance is lost on him.

# wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:06pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 3:00pm: # wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 2:21pm: Who but the most degenerate will do what the best minds warn increases the risk? Are you saying that anthropogenic co2 emissions are responsible for natural disasters......???? Are you denying that the best minds warn that global warming, which is substantially anthropogenic, increases the risk?

Why couldn't you just answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no' ?

Try it:

Are you saying that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are responsible for natural disasters?

Let's just make it the ambiguous question thread.

natural disasters are caused by climate change
bottles are black.
cancer is caused by cigarette smoking.

Three similar phrases. All ambiguous. All can be answered yes or no depending on context.

muso wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:53pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 8:23pm: Its all about intensity and frequency over a stochastically significant time scale/frame Mr Ajax (you know, medium to long trends etc - you know this right?) Are you kidding? I doubt if he appreciates the distinction between stochastic and deterministic. This is Mr Nowarmingsince1998 you're talking to.  The concept of statistical significance is lost on him.

Maybe he is a string theorist - a foot in both camps

muso wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 9:04pm:

Let's just make it the ambiguous question thread. natural disasters are caused by climate change bottles are black. cancer is caused by cigarette smoking. Three similar phrases. All ambiguous. All can be answered yes or no depending on context.

The point is individual cases cant be definitively attributed to a specific causal driver.

Even in the case of lung cancer for a long term smoker. A person that has been smoking for many decades may well have contracted lung cancer anyway if they didn't smoke. All the doctor can advise is that its MOST LIKELY that your lung cancer was caused by your smoking.

What gives us a clearer picture is looking at the cancer rate in a large sample of smokers and comparing that rate with a control and a sample of people who don't smoke at all.

There are effects however, driven by the warming of the planet that don't involve individual events such as rising sea levels or coral reef disappearance etc.

Like Sagan once said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

And the global scientific community has reached a point in the AGW journey whereby the AGW denialist stance requires extraordinary evidence and rationale to maintain

For a person to even be uncommitted on the human drivers of Global warming is rather silly IMO. (although I can understand those that don't care)

Well we can say with 95% confidence that the tsunami that overwhelmed Fukushima was a natural disaster that was not caused by rising CO2.

On the other hand, can we say that increasing CO2 emissions will lead to Southern Hemisphere cyclone tracks migrating further South on average over the next 50 years? According to AR5, this is a likely (55-100% probability) scenario.

That will have the result of increasing the risk of tropical cyclone damage in cities like Brisbane.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

# wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 8:06pm: Ajax wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 3:00pm: # wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 2:21pm: Who but the most degenerate will do what the best minds warn increases the risk? Are you saying that anthropogenic co2 emissions are responsible for natural disasters......???? Are you denying that the best minds warn that global warming, which is substantially anthropogenic, increases the risk? Why couldn't you just answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no' ? ...

Because neither would be a complete and honest answer. Still trolling, young simpleton.

Seeing as how you're back:-
# wrote on Aug 10^th, 2013 at 10:17am:

# wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 4:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 3:29pm: # wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 1:32pm: ... Bearing in mind that the vast majority of the best qualified hold a consistent position on Anthropogenic Global Warming, what are your qualifications for denying that there is "enough reliable, credible evidence to support it"? Is your position scepticism or denial? Scepticism. As I've already explained to you, I am completely open-minded: AGW may indeed be happening. Considering the evidence available at the moment though, I remain sceptical. So what is your rationale for denying the credibility of the evidence upon which the vast majority of the best qualified rely? From your failure to respond, I infer that you have no rational basis for your denial. Given that scepticism is a rational philosophy, if your denial has no rational basis, is it scepticism? If your denial is not scepticism, are you a genuine sceptic? You can easily establish your credibility by detailing your rationale. If you can't do that, then you might do yourself a favour by examining the reasons for your faith in a belief system that is not supported by the vast majority of the best qualified.

The invitation was repeated many times:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/66#66
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/55#55
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/53#53
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/33#33
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/31#31
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375841990/57#57
You repeatedly failed to detail a rational basis for your denial. Your behaviour therefore doesn't qualify as scepticism.

Forum software records your history. Irritating, isn't it?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 1:34am:

... (although I can understand those that don't care)

I've seen enough of consequences, the risk of which global warming will probably increase, that I really can't understand not caring. I'm particularly offended by those, like greggerypeccary, who evidently think it's fun to play games with the issue.

# wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 8:08am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 1:34am: ... (although I can understand those that don't care) I've seen enough of consequences, the risk of which global warming will probably increase, that I really can't understand not caring. I'm particularly offended by those, like greggerypeccary, who evidently think it's fun to play games with the issue.

Approximately 7% of people in western societies are sociopaths - they tend to end up as CEOs, Bankers and some politicians etc.

A further few 1 or 2% are psychopathic to some extent, not always resulting in criminal outcomes.

So the fact that there are people out there who DONT CARE doesn't surprise me at all.

What concerns me is when these sociopaths end up in positions of power, both in the political and corporate realms.

We all know what Abbott will do and why.

I commend Tony Abbott for his courage to disregard the pseudo science coming out of that politically motivated body called the IPCC.

Lets hope more governments around the world throw the AGW religion in the dust bin where it belongs.

And get back to governing their own countries for their own citizens.

Ajax wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 1:16pm:

I commend Tony Abbott for his courage to disregard the pseudo science coming out of that politically motivated body called the IPCC. Lets hope more governments around the world throw the AGW religion in the dust bin where it belongs. And get back to governing their own countries for their own citizens.

Abbott is a corporatized right wing lawyer

He doesn't even have a minister for science

We all know what Abbott-oire is all about don't we ladies and gentlemen

Taking us down the road of short term profit and racist fascism, which will do great damage to our nation for many decades to come,

I hope you live long enough to see it

To witness it.

To repent.

To realise your delusional greed and what you supported which has sentenced future generations to a life of excrement and carnage

You should be utterly ashamed of yourself

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 1:46pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 1:16pm: I commend Tony Abbott for his courage to disregard the pseudo science coming out of that politically motivated body called the IPCC. Lets hope more governments around the world throw the AGW religion in the dust bin where it belongs. And get back to governing their own countries for their own citizens. Abbott is a corporatized right wing lawyer He doesn't even have a minister for science We all know what Abbott-oire is all about don't we ladies and gentlemen Taking us down the road of short term profit and racist fascism, which will do great damage to our nation for many decades to come, I hope you live long enough to see it To witness it. To repent. To realise your delusional greed and what you supported which has sentenced future generations to a life of excrement and carnage You should be utterly ashamed of yourself

I would prefer that than being in financial slavery for ever to the United Nations, not just us but our children and their children and so on as long as pricing carbon exists.

I don't want the United Nations telling Australia how and when she can use her resources.

They should stick to the cuddly polar bears and let nations rule themselves..

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 12:33pm:

# wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 8:08am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 1:34am: ... (although I can understand those that don't care) I've seen enough of consequences, the risk of which global warming will probably increase, that I really can't understand not caring. I'm particularly offended by those, like greggerypeccary, who evidently think it's fun to play games with the issue. Approximately 7% of people in western societies are sociopaths - they tend to end up as CEOs, Bankers and some politicians etc. A further few 1 or 2% are psychopathic to some extent, not always resulting in criminal outcomes. So the fact that there are people out there who DONT CARE doesn't surprise me at all. What concerns me is when these sociopaths end up in positions of power, both in the political and corporate realms. We all know what Abbott will do and why.

OK, now I see where you're coming from. At the last election, between Abbott and Rudd, we had a choice of psychopaths. Did we make the best choice?

And what of greggerypeccary, and the like? The more I think about it, the more apt simpleton seems.

Ajax wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 1:50pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 1:46pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 1:16pm: I commend Tony Abbott for his courage to disregard the pseudo science coming out of that politically motivated body called the IPCC. Lets hope more governments around the world throw the AGW religion in the dust bin where it belongs. And get back to governing their own countries for their own citizens. Abbott is a corporatized right wing lawyer He doesn't even have a minister for science We all know what Abbott-oire is all about don't we ladies and gentlemen Taking us down the road of short term profit and racist fascism, which will do great damage to our nation for many decades to come, I hope you live long enough to see it To witness it. To repent. To realise your delusional greed and what you supported which has sentenced future generations to a life of excrement and carnage You should be utterly ashamed of yourself I don't want the United Nations telling Australia how and when she can use her resources.

No need, 83% of Australias so called resources are foreign owned by big multinational corporations. Mainly in the hands of US corporations (~56%).

They pay very little tax in Australia and only employ about 3% of the workforce. In fact Australias resource sector actually costs the Tax payer to have it operating in this nation.

The UN also overseas racial and humanitarian matters. And AUstralia is an international disgrace with respect to these important issues.

The UN funded IPCC report is actually quite mild in its predictions of CLimate change effects.

Perhaps you should read some peer reviewed scientific literature?

I assume that you have at least done this prior to arriving at your ridiculous conspiracy and denialist madness

# wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 3:13pm:

OK, now I see where you're coming from. At the last election, between Abbott and Rudd, we had a choice of psychopaths. Did we make the best choice? And what of greggerypeccary, and the like? The more I think about it, the more apt simpleton seems.

Don't fall into that trap.

I wouldn't be too hasty to judge his politics on the basis of his clouded views on global warming. In fact I think you'd be surprised. There are those who claim that I'm Left Wing and others that equate  greggerypeccary with the Right. In fact you can reverse those two conclusions.

Then there is our friend Ajax with his blistering (almost Marxist conspiratorial) criticism of Milton Friedman and corporations. Now I'll get everybody offside I suspect, but I equate best with Friedman's Right Wing Libertarian stance, but like Friedman, I agree that companies that pollute should be taxed so that a product's cost to society is reflected in the price of that product.

1.Atmospheric Physics has no political allegiance.

2. Not everybody votes on single issues.

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 8:12am:

# wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 3:13pm: ... what of greggerypeccary, and the like? The more I think about it, the more apt simpleton seems. ... I wouldn't be too hasty to judge his politics on the basis of his clouded views on global warming. ...

This being a politics site, it's natural that you think in those terms.

On global warming, greggerypeccary pretends to have an open mind. His behaviour belies that.

Those who believe, one way or another, can point to sources of their belief. I've never known greggerypeccary to substantiate anything he's said. He's therefore given no reason to suppose that he believes anything he says.

Why would anyone say something they don't believe? All things considered, I've come to the conclusion that greggerypeccary tends to say whatever he hopes will provoke a reaction from which he can derive perverse pleasure. In addition to http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1380325015/87#87, a quick search turned up a couple more posts which to me are obvious trolls: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376908269/15#15 and http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375834924/18#18. I've no doubt there are many more.

You're opinion might differ, but to me greggerypeccary is no more than a troll (at least on global warming). Trolling on such a significant issue is the mark of a simpleton.

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 8:12am:

I wouldn't be too hasty to judge his politics on the basis of his clouded views on global warming. In fact I think you'd be surprised. There are those who claim that I'm Left Wing and others that equate  greggerypeccary with the Right. In fact you can reverse those two conclusions.

Exactly.

I doubt if there are many on here who are as far to the left as I am.

One thing you can always count on in this forum, is that some people will jump to crazy conclusions and make wild assumptions.

I'm an open-minded sceptic when it comes to AGW, so people immediately think I'm a Liberal supporter.  Wrong.

They also assume that just because of my open-minded scepticism, I'm opposed to governments taking precautionary action against the possible threat of AGW.  Wrong.

Pffft.

# wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 7:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:56pm: ... To be clear, I couldn't care less what you regard me as. I doubt that. Trolling is calculated to offend. You offend me. That matters to you. greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 5:56pm: Moreover, I'm not adverse to onanism ... Evidently. Meanwhile, the bush fire season has started early. I live on the land, so I'll have less time to spend here. According to the vast majority of the best qualified, global warming will lead to conditions like those responsible for the early start of the bush fire season becoming more common. Global warming; remember that? You treat it as a joke.

au contraire

What I do treat as a joke is closed-minded fools who have no capacity to think for themselves, and who jump to crazy conclusions and make wild assumptions based on both ignorance and arrogance.

Naturally, I find you extremely amusing.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 12:33pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 8:12am: I wouldn't be too hasty to judge his politics on the basis of his clouded views on global warming. In fact I think you'd be surprised. There are those who claim that I'm Left Wing and others that equate  greggerypeccary with the Right. In fact you can reverse those two conclusions. I'm an open-minded sceptic when it comes to AGW.

I see, so you are sceptical about CO2 being a by-product of fossil fuel combustion and whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas/

very open minded

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 1:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 12:33pm: muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 8:12am: I wouldn't be too hasty to judge his politics on the basis of his clouded views on global warming. In fact I think you'd be surprised. There are those who claim that I'm Left Wing and others that equate  greggerypeccary with the Right. In fact you can reverse those two conclusions. I'm an open-minded sceptic when it comes to AGW. I see, so you are sceptical about CO2 being a by-product of fossil fuel combustion and whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas/

No.

Nice try though.

You amuse me almost as much as #

Peccary is a bit of an outcast being a lefty "denier", funny how these things seem to go along political lines, I have to suffer the same indignity in my role as being a rabid right winger and yet also the worlds biggest atheist   ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 2:11pm:

Peccary is a bit of an outcast being a lefty "denier" sceptic ...

And I wouldn't have it any other way.

This issue isn't about partisan politics, or consensus: it's about science.

Maybe you should talk about the science then. I shouldn't be so hard on Ajax. At least he tries to do that.

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 2:49pm:

Maybe you should talk about the science then. I shouldn't be so hard on Ajax. At least he tries to do that.

Its not really a scientific topic is it?, more religious or political.

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 2:49pm:

Maybe you should talk about the science then. I shouldn't be so hard on Ajax. At least he tries to do that.

I've dealt with many alarmists.

What I have learned is that it's a complete waste of time discussing the science with them  They simply do not wish to listen to anything that differs from their own preconceived, arrogant views.

As the previous poster said: it's more like a religion with you alarmists.  In all my years, I have never encountered a more closed-minded group of people (except perhaps religious fundamentalists).

Ajax will learn soon enough.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:06pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 2:49pm: Maybe you should talk about the science then. I shouldn't be so hard on Ajax. At least he tries to do that. I've dealt with many alarmists.

....but never dealt with Bolt or Moncton.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:06pm: muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 2:49pm: Maybe you should talk about the science then. I shouldn't be so hard on Ajax. At least he tries to do that. I've dealt with many alarmists. ....but never dealt with Bolt or Moncton.

Exactly.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:06pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 2:49pm: Maybe you should talk about the science then. I shouldn't be so hard on Ajax. At least he tries to do that. I've dealt with many alarmists. What I have learned is that it's a complete waste of time discussing the science with them  They simply do not wish to listen to anything that differs from their own preconceived, arrogant views. As the previous poster said: it's more like a religion with you alarmists.  In all my years, I have never encountered a more closed-minded group of people (except perhaps religious fundamentalists). Ajax will learn soon enough.

Just skim through the latest IPCC Report and say that it's nothing to do with science while maintaining a straight face.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 1:06pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 1:04pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 12:33pm: muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 8:12am: I wouldn't be too hasty to judge his politics on the basis of his clouded views on global warming. In fact I think you'd be surprised. There are those who claim that I'm Left Wing and others that equate  greggerypeccary with the Right. In fact you can reverse those two conclusions. I'm an open-minded sceptic when it comes to AGW. I see, so you are sceptical about CO2 being a by-product of fossil fuel combustion and whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas/ No. Nice try though. You amuse me almost as much as #

You accept the premise the co2 levels are rising and that humans are responsible for this rise. You accept the fact that co2 is a greenhouse gas.

So what exactly are you denying?

Do you even understand your own DENIALIST stance?

I am keen to learn from the master DENIALIST as to why he frequents his religious temples and why he worships the bolt priest and Moncton charlatan

Don't be afraid Greg, you're amongst friends here.

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:15pm:

Just skim through the latest IPCC Report and say that it's nothing to do with science while maintaining a straight face.

The latest IPCC report is a political document not a scientific document, it has absolutely no scientific basis at all with regard to real science.
Just watch the Donna Framboise interview at the 50 to 1 project  , if you still have faith in the IPCC after watching that then you may need professional help  ;D

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:06pm: muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 2:49pm: Maybe you should talk about the science then. I shouldn't be so hard on Ajax. At least he tries to do that. I've dealt with many alarmists. What I have learned is that it's a complete waste of time discussing the science with them  They simply do not wish to listen to anything that differs from their own preconceived, arrogant views. As the previous poster said: it's more like a religion with you alarmists.  In all my years, I have never encountered a more closed-minded group of people (except perhaps religious fundamentalists). Ajax will learn soon enough. Just skim through the latest IPCC Report and say that it's nothing to do with science while maintaining a straight face.

I never said that the IPCC Report has nothing to do with science. 

However, alarmists like you and the monkey boy manage to treat it like a religious document.  You latch onto one piece of evidence and then faith takes over from there.  The IPCC Report becomes your bible, and you won't hear a bad word said about it.  According to the closed-minded alarmists there's no way any of the scientific information in it could be wrong.

You don't seem to understand the basic principles of science, and your minds are completely closed.  As I said before, I've never encountered a more closed-minded or arrogant group of people in my life.

Moreover, I've lost count of the amount of times that you and other alarmists have used the term 'consensus'.  Just more evidence of your complete lack of understanding when it comes to science.

AGW is certainly a scientific theory, based on sound scientific principles, however, you alarmists manage to arrogantly turn it into nothing more than a faith based religion. 

Ajax will learn soon enough.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:32pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:15pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:06pm: muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 2:49pm: Maybe you should talk about the science then. I shouldn't be so hard on Ajax. At least he tries to do that. I've dealt with many alarmists. What I have learned is that it's a complete waste of time discussing the science with them  They simply do not wish to listen to anything that differs from their own preconceived, arrogant views. As the previous poster said: it's more like a religion with you alarmists.  In all my years, I have never encountered a more closed-minded group of people (except perhaps religious fundamentalists). Ajax will learn soon enough. Just skim through the latest IPCC Report and say that it's nothing to do with science while maintaining a straight face. I never said that the IPCC Report has nothing to do with science.  However, alarmists like you and the monkey boy manage to treat it like a religious document.

Actually I don't bother too much with the IPCC reports. The IPCC reports tend to be too conservative due to their numerous inputs. Their conclusions are generally diluted and conservative.

Being a researcher myself I have access to numerous scientific data bases that have excellent search tools. I generally base my assessment of scientific theories and their supporting evidence on the peer reviewed literature and it is this approach that has led me to feeling VERY concerned about AGW, and the serious climate, environmental and ecological disasters that await humanity if Carbon releases aren't mitigated substantially.

So when you gallop in here with your Bolt sunglasses on and residual intellect it can only lead to ONE thing

Isn't that right greggy boy!

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 4:27pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:32pm: muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:15pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:06pm: muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 2:49pm: Maybe you should talk about the science then. I shouldn't be so hard on Ajax. At least he tries to do that. I've dealt with many alarmists. What I have learned is that it's a complete waste of time discussing the science with them  They simply do not wish to listen to anything that differs from their own preconceived, arrogant views. As the previous poster said: it's more like a religion with you alarmists.  In all my years, I have never encountered a more closed-minded group of people (except perhaps religious fundamentalists). Ajax will learn soon enough. Just skim through the latest IPCC Report and say that it's nothing to do with science while maintaining a straight face. I never said that the IPCC Report has nothing to do with science.  However, alarmists like you and the monkey boy manage to treat it like a religious document.  Being a researcher myself ... ... So when you gallop in here with your Bolt sunglasses on ...

You might want to do a bit of research on the English language.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1380325015/112#112

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 4:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:32pm: muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:15pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:06pm: muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 2:49pm: Maybe you should talk about the science then. I shouldn't be so hard on Ajax. At least he tries to do that. I've dealt with many alarmists. What I have learned is that it's a complete waste of time discussing the science with them  They simply do not wish to listen to anything that differs from their own preconceived, arrogant views. As the previous poster said: it's more like a religion with you alarmists.  In all my years, I have never encountered a more closed-minded group of people (except perhaps religious fundamentalists). Ajax will learn soon enough. Just skim through the latest IPCC Report and say that it's nothing to do with science while maintaining a straight face. I never said that the IPCC Report has nothing to do with science.  However, alarmists like you and the monkey boy manage to treat it like a religious document.  Being a researcher myself ... ... So when you gallop in here with your Bolt sunglasses on ... You might want to do a bit of research on the English language. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1380325015/112#112

So one of your major sources for research is OZPOLITIC?

interesting....

It must have taken a long time for you to arrive at your nickname?

Did you have a difficult upbringing Greggy boy?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 5:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 5:29pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 4:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:32pm: muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:15pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:06pm: muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 2:49pm: Maybe you should talk about the science then. I shouldn't be so hard on Ajax. At least he tries to do that. I've dealt with many alarmists. What I have learned is that it's a complete waste of time discussing the science with them  They simply do not wish to listen to anything that differs from their own preconceived, arrogant views. As the previous poster said: it's more like a religion with you alarmists.  In all my years, I have never encountered a more closed-minded group of people (except perhaps religious fundamentalists). Ajax will learn soon enough. Just skim through the latest IPCC Report and say that it's nothing to do with science while maintaining a straight face. I never said that the IPCC Report has nothing to do with science.  However, alarmists like you and the monkey boy manage to treat it like a religious document.  Being a researcher myself ... ... So when you gallop in here with your Bolt sunglasses on ... You might want to do a bit of research on the English language. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1380325015/112#112 So one of your major sources for research is OZPOLITIC?

I take that back:

You might want to do a bit an awful lot of research on the English language.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 2:21pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 2:11pm: Peccary is a bit of an outcast being a lefty "denier" sceptic ... And I wouldn't have it any other way. This issue isn't about partisan politics, or consensus: it's about science.

Greggery is still trying to own words like a tryhard chess player!

How boring is the wine getting mate???

How many people kick the bucket finally realising red wine is poo. Oh, switch to the white poo then ay love?? Yeh good one-  a toffee nose for a reputation!

The kids must love you for company ay buddy!??!

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:25pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:15pm: Just skim through the latest IPCC Report and say that it's nothing to do with science while maintaining a straight face. The latest IPCC report is a political document not a scientific document, it has absolutely no scientific basis at all with regard to real science. Just watch the Donna Framboise interview at the 50 to 1 project  , if you still have faith in the IPCC after watching that then you may need professional help  ;D

Innocent can't define "politics"  :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*

** Don't cry buddy will ya!!

# wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 8:08am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 1:34am: ... (although I can understand those that don't care) I've seen enough of consequences, the risk of which global warming will probably increase, that I really can't understand not caring. I'm particularly offended by those, like greggerypeccary, who evidently think it's fun to play games with the issue.

They think being hardcore bean counters denying all responsibility makes the world system stronger! They believe if something has to be done it will be done regardless of whatever they do or say.

Basically, they think words don't matter- none of them believe in religion of course even though they use it to promote their supposedly pious nature.

Why any earthly government official would try to use their belief in a heavenly government to promote themselves in this world is rightfully questioned on it at all times...  :o :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:23pm:

# wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 8:08am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 1:34am: ... (although I can understand those that don't care) I've seen enough of consequences, the risk of which global warming will probably increase, that I really can't understand not caring. I'm particularly offended by those, like greggerypeccary, who evidently think it's fun to play games with the issue. They think being hardcore bean counters denying all responsibility makes the world system stronger! They believe if something has to be done it will be done regardless of whatever they do or say. Basically, they think words don't matter- none of them believe in religion of course even though they use it to promote their supposedly pious nature. Why any earthly government official would try to use their belief in a heavenly government to promote themselves in this world is rightfully questioned on it at all times...  :o :o

And by hardcore beancounters we mean little John Howard who ended up overseeing the Biggest spending federal government in Australia's history. Even though he was criticised for not spending on infrastructure. Amazing feats of self delusional corruption and immorality these right wing corporatized conservatives

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 2:21pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 2:11pm: Peccary is a bit of an outcast being a lefty "denier" sceptic ... And I wouldn't have it any other way. This issue isn't about partisan politics, or consensus: it's about science. Greggery is still trying to own words like a tryhard chess player! How boring is the wine getting mate??? How many people kick the bucket finally realising red wine is poo. Oh, switch to the white poo then ay love?? Yeh good one-  a toffee nose for a reputation! The kids must love you for company ay buddy!??!

He has a point there little Greggy

You are up against the ropes now and cant defend yourself very well

I told you so!

See what happens when you follow the path of Beelzebub?

---

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:53pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 7:23pm: # wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 8:08am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 1:34am: ... (although I can understand those that don't care) I've seen enough of consequences, the risk of which global warming will probably increase, that I really can't understand not caring. I'm particularly offended by those, like greggerypeccary, who evidently think it's fun to play games with the issue. They think being hardcore bean counters denying all responsibility makes the world system stronger! They believe if something has to be done it will be done regardless of whatever they do or say. Basically, they think words don't matter- none of them believe in religion of course even though they use it to promote their supposedly pious nature. Why any earthly government official would try to use their belief in a heavenly government to promote themselves in this world is rightfully questioned on it at all times...  :o :o And by hardcore beancounters we mean little John Howard who ended up overseeing the Biggest spending federal government in Australia's history. Even though he was criticised for not spending on infrastructure. Amazing feats of self delusional corruption and immorality these right wing corporatized conservatives

No one likes Johnny: he did recognise that for the Liberal party to keep itself electable it needed to recognise climate change early in the picture however.

:o ::) ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 8:03pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 7:53pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 7:23pm: # wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 8:08am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 1:34am: ... (although I can understand those that don't care) I've seen enough of consequences, the risk of which global warming will probably increase, that I really can't understand not caring. I'm particularly offended by those, like greggerypeccary, who evidently think it's fun to play games with the issue. They think being hardcore bean counters denying all responsibility makes the world system stronger! They believe if something has to be done it will be done regardless of whatever they do or say. Basically, they think words don't matter- none of them believe in religion of course even though they use it to promote their supposedly pious nature. Why any earthly government official would try to use their belief in a heavenly government to promote themselves in this world is rightfully questioned on it at all times...  :o :o And by hardcore beancounters we mean little John Howard who ended up overseeing the Biggest spending federal government in Australia's history. Even though he was criticised for not spending on infrastructure. Amazing feats of self delusional corruption and immorality these right wing corporatized conservatives No one likes Johnny: he did recognise that for the Liberal party to keep itself electable it needed to recognise climate change early in the picture however. :o ::) ::)

Remember those glory days?

When the only 3 nations NOT to ratify Kyoto were Russia, Australia and the USA. Then Russia signed on to Kyoto which left Howard and Bush as the only denialist governments in the world.

Then Rudd was elected in 2007 and did the unthinkable by signing Kyoto leaving the good old USA who has still yet to join the civilised world.

Amazing that War mongering US military fascist imperialised corporatized scandal of a nation even had the AUDACITY to attend the Copenhagen meeting and try to route it with its Obama hypocrisy and double talk.

What a world we live - wrong people in charge, wrong people puling the purse strings

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 8:31pm:

Remember those glory days? When the only 3 nations NOT to ratify Kyoto were Russia, Australia and the USA. Then Russia signed on to Kyoto which left Howard and Bush as the only denialist governments in the world. Then Rudd was elected in 2007 and did the unthinkable by signing Kyoto leaving the good old USA who has still yet to join the civilised world. Amazing that War mongering US military fascist imperialised corporatized scandal of a nation even had the AUDACITY to attend the Copenhagen meeting and try to route it with its Obama hypocrisy and double talk. What a world we live - wrong people in charge, wrong people puling the purse strings

So he didn't ratify it: that is simply them acknowledging climate change whilst keeping some image of the hard nosed decision maker image alive in the eyes of the tryhard upper middle-class bean counters amongst us.

It's all image: the point I was making is that Howard had to acknowledge it to some degree for the Libs to keep a credible image alive. The point you are making is that that also had to keep the hard nosed tryhard image alive to entice all the tryhard upper middle-class to keep voting for them.

It's always a balance: it's the very same balance between nerd and tuffguy that we all make every second every day.

Just be thankfull that at the end of the day all of this man made climate change horsesh#t is a bunch of crap, another five years of no warming should see it off, of course we will still be stuck with the same f#ckwit believers, just as surely as we are stuck with seventh day adventists that want to bleed to death but f#ckwittery knows no bounds, thats how the whole global warming scare got off the ground to start with  ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 8:44pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 8:31pm: Remember those glory days? When the only 3 nations NOT to ratify Kyoto were Russia, Australia and the USA. Then Russia signed on to Kyoto which left Howard and Bush as the only denialist governments in the world. Then Rudd was elected in 2007 and did the unthinkable by signing Kyoto leaving the good old USA who has still yet to join the civilised world. Amazing that War mongering US military fascist imperialised corporatized scandal of a nation even had the AUDACITY to attend the Copenhagen meeting and try to route it with its Obama hypocrisy and double talk. What a world we live - wrong people in charge, wrong people puling the purse strings So he didn't ratify it: that is simply them acknowledging climate change whilst keeping some image of the hard nosed decision maker image alive in the eyes of the tryhard upper middle-class bean counters amongst us. It's all image: the point I was making is that Howard had to acknowledge it to some degree for the Libs to keep a credible image alive. The point you are making is that that also had to keep the hard nosed tryhard image alive to entice all the tryhard upper middle-class to keep voting for them. It's always a balance: it's the very same balance between nerd and tuffguy that we all make every second every day.

Howards acknowledgement of AGW amounted to him pushing Turnbull forward as a moderately reasonable Liberal party clown who made some conservative rhetoric about Australia doing something about curbing carbon emissions - like shoving char in the ground

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 4:27pm:

Actually I don't bother too much with the IPCC reports. The IPCC reports tend to be too conservative due to their numerous inputs. Their conclusions are generally diluted and conservative. Being a researcher myself I have access to numerous scientific data bases that have excellent search tools. I generally base my assessment of scientific theories and their supporting evidence on the peer reviewed literature and it is this approach that has led me to feeling VERY concerned about AGW, and the serious climate, environmental and ecological disasters that await humanity if Carbon releases aren't mitigated substantially.

The latest IPCC report is worth reading, although I agree that it has been hijacked by politicians and is considerably watered down - particularly the non technical parts that they actually understand. I can see the frustration in many of the mainstream climatologists.

I also have databases at my disposal.

You have to read between the lines to establish that when China cleans up its sulphate aerosol (DMS)  emissions, the predicted warming will eventuate. Currently, the observed temperatures are in the lower range of predictions, with perhaps one or two points outside the error bands. Of course at a 95% confidence level, 2.5% of observations falling outside the 95% limits is to be expected.

I don't accept every finding in that report. I challenge every finding.

Did you know that atmospheric co2 levels are at historical lows and if they got down to 150ppm life on Earth would cease, did you know that all plant and animal life developed during a period of far greater co2 content, are you all aware that life on Earth flourished during times when co2 content was 2000 ppm, did you know that humans can survive co2 levels of 5000 ppm?, f#ck me dead how did people become so scientifically illiterate, probably because they let their political views overwhelm their scientific views thats why.   

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:02pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 4:27pm: Actually I don't bother too much with the IPCC reports. The IPCC reports tend to be too conservative due to their numerous inputs. Their conclusions are generally diluted and conservative. Being a researcher myself I have access to numerous scientific data bases that have excellent search tools. I generally base my assessment of scientific theories and their supporting evidence on the peer reviewed literature and it is this approach that has led me to feeling VERY concerned about AGW, and the serious climate, environmental and ecological disasters that await humanity if Carbon releases aren't mitigated substantially. The latest IPCC report is worth reading, although I agree that it has been hijacked by politicians and is considerably watered down - particularly the non technical parts that they actually understand. I can see the frustration in many of the mainstream climatologists. I also have databases at my disposal. You have to read between the lines to establish that when China cleans up its sulphate aerosol (DMS)  emissions, the predicted warming will eventuate. Currently, the observed temperatures are in the lower range of predictions, with perhaps one or two points outside the error bands. Of course at a 95% confidence level, 2.5% of observations falling outside the 95% limits is to be expected. I don't accept every finding in that report. I challenge every finding.

I don't ignore the IPCC report entirely - just don't rely on it.

I prefer to survey the scientific literature and get a picture of what is occurring in the latest research.

The second thread of information I use are the official research and monitoring bodies such as CSIRO, NASA, the various EPAs, University departments, meteorological etc

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:12pm:

Did you know that atmospheric co2 levels are at historical lows and if they got down to 150ppm life on Earth would cease, did you know that all plant and animal life developed during a period of far greater co2 content, are you all aware that life on Earth flourished during times when co2 content was 2000 ppm, did you know that humans can survive co2 levels of 5000 ppm?, f#ck me dead how did people become so scientifically illiterate, probably because they let their political views overwhelm their scientific views thats why.

Most of those are half truths. 5000ppm is the exposure standard for healthy individuals working in elevated CO2 for  40 hours per week in the US, or 5 days at 8 hours per day in Australia.

At continuous levels of 3000 ppm, healthy individual have reported calcification effects in body organs. Research preganant women and submarines. Typically short term CO2 in submarines can be around 3000ppm. It's not sustainable though.

The CO2 concentration has already been very close to 150 ppm and life still exists on Earth. Google C4 photosynthesis and CAM photosynthesis. C4 photosynthesis is thought to have evolved during periods of low atmospheric CO2.

Low CO2 affects some terrestrial plant life, but not animal life.

So is climate sensitivity high or low? You can't have it both ways.

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:12pm:

Did you know that atmospheric co2 levels are at historical lows and if they got down to 150ppm life on Earth would cease, did you know that all plant and animal life developed during a period of far greater co2 content, are you all aware that life on Earth flourished during times when co2 content was 2000 ppm, did you know that humans can survive co2 levels of 5000 ppm?, f#ck me dead how did people become so scientifically illiterate, probably because they let their political views overwhelm their scientific views thats why.

Yes the world when CO2 levels hovered around 10,000 ppmv (~1% v/v)

---

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:21pm:

The CO2 concentration has already been at 150 ppm and life is still existing on Earth. Although you may not know it, what you are claiming from that is a high climate sensitivity. So is cliamte sensitivity high or low? You can't have it both ways.

No sorry but 150ppm is the generally accepted level at which life on Earth would cease, currently we are at historically low levels of co2, the only way is up, anyone that wants to restrict co2 levels is an enemy of life, studies have shown that co2 levels of 1200ppm have amazing positive effects on plant and tree growth, of course that doesn't help much for the end of the worlders though  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:30pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 9:21pm: The CO2 concentration has already been at 150 ppm and life is still existing on Earth. Although you may not know it, what you are claiming from that is a high climate sensitivity. So is cliamte sensitivity high or low? You can't have it both ways. No sorry but 150ppm is the generally accepted level at which life on Earth would cease, currently we are at historically low levels of co2, the only way is up, anyone that wants to restrict co2 levels is an enemy of life, studies have shown that co2 levels of 1200ppm have amazing positive effects on plant and tree growth, of course that doesn't help much for the end of the worlders though  ;D

....and we all know what happens to innocent bystanders don't we innocent bystander?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:45pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 9:30pm: muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 9:21pm: The CO2 concentration has already been at 150 ppm and life is still existing on Earth. Although you may not know it, what you are claiming from that is a high climate sensitivity. So is cliamte sensitivity high or low? You can't have it both ways. No sorry but 150ppm is the generally accepted level at which life on Earth would cease, currently we are at historically low levels of co2, the only way is up, anyone that wants to restrict co2 levels is an enemy of life, studies have shown that co2 levels of 1200ppm have amazing positive effects on plant and tree growth, of course that doesn't help much for the end of the worlders though  ;D ....and we all know what happens to innocent bystanders don't we innocent bystander?

Is that really your considered response?, you should be embarrassed.

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:54pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 9:45pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 9:30pm: muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 9:21pm: The CO2 concentration has already been at 150 ppm and life is still existing on Earth. Although you may not know it, what you are claiming from that is a high climate sensitivity. So is cliamte sensitivity high or low? You can't have it both ways. No sorry but 150ppm is the generally accepted level at which life on Earth would cease, currently we are at historically low levels of co2, the only way is up, anyone that wants to restrict co2 levels is an enemy of life, studies have shown that co2 levels of 1200ppm have amazing positive effects on plant and tree growth, of course that doesn't help much for the end of the worlders though  ;D ....and we all know what happens to innocent bystanders don't we innocent bystander? Is that really your considered response?, you should be embarrassed.

give me a good reason to respond to your cultist denialist religious dogma and I may consider responding to your residual excremental public comments

Now be gone with you putrid freak clown of Hades

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:30pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 9:21pm: The CO2 concentration has already been at 150 ppm and life is still existing on Earth. Although you may not know it, what you are claiming from that is a high climate sensitivity. So is climate sensitivity high or low? You can't have it both ways. No sorry but 150ppm is the generally accepted level at which life on Earth would cease, currently we are at historically low levels of co2, the only way is up, anyone that wants to restrict co2 levels is an enemy of life, studies have shown that co2 levels of 1200ppm have amazing positive effects on plant and tree growth, of course that doesn't help much for the end of the worlders though  ;D

I'd love to see the study that supports that little gem. 

1. Low CO2  only affects plants with C3 Photosynthesis, but not C4 or CAM photosynthesis.
2. It doesn't affect animals in any way.

Your claim is simply daft.

Elevated levels of CO2, even at 1200ppm have been demonstrated to affect concentration and cause headaches and difficulty in making decisions. Prolonged concentration at 3000ppm  can result in miscarriages in pregnant women and levels from 1000- 3000ppm have been demonstrated to  cause renal calcification and testicular calcification with resulting loss of fertility.

You must provide a link to your source. Here is one of mine:

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ehp.1104789.pdf

Given that some urban environments are already at about 500ppm in the open,  a general elevation in atmospheric CO2 is likely to result in dangerous levels in urban areas.

For paleo CO2 levels:

Barnola, J.-M., D. Raynaud, C. Lorius, and N.I. Barkov. 2003. Historical CO2 record from the Vostok ice core.

Look at unsmoothed CO2 data. Check the value at 67,500 years BP. It's 153.7 ppm CO2.

Also:

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/tripati.etal.sci.2009.pdf

Tripati et al 2009 - CO2 levels dropped to 150 ppm during late Pliocene glaciations.

Also check this graph:
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif

(Courtesy of your mate Anthony Watts.)

muso seems to have an innocent bystander up against the ropes

see what happens when you read too much Bolt with your breakfast?

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/scripts/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/imagemanager/files/Kremlik/500million.jpg



Life flourished on Earth when co2 was up to 20 X what it is today.

What are the Allowable Limits of CO2 EXPOSURE

Carbon dioxide exposure limits PEL and TLV set by OSHA and NIOSH

Carbon dioxide is regulated for diverse purposes but not as a toxic substance.

bullet      The U.S. EPA CO2 exposure limits: The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure.
bullet      ASHRAE standard 62-1989 recommends an indoor air ventilation standard of 20 cfm per person of outdoor air or a CO2 level which is below 1000ppm.
bullet      NIOSH CO2 exposure limits: NIOSH recommends a maximum concentration of carbon dioxide of 10,000 ppm or 1% (for the workplace, for a 10-hr work shift with a ceiling of 3.0% or 30,000 ppm for any 10-minute period). These are the highest threshold limit value (TLV) and permissible exposure limit (PEL) assigned to any material.  NIOSH's recommended CO2 exposure limit for 15 minutes is 3.0% or 30,000 ppm . A CO2 level of 4% (40,000 ppm)  is designated by NIOSH as immediately dangerous to life or health.
bullet      OSHA CO2 exposure limits: The U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration, OSHA, has set Permissible Exposure Limits for Carbon Dioxide in workplace atmospheres at...
bullet       10,000 ppm of CO2 measured as a Time Weighted Average (TWA) level of exposure
bullet      OSHA has set 30,000 ppm of CO2 as a Short-Term Exposure Limit (STEL).
bullet      OSHA has also set a Transitional Limit of 5,000 ppm CO2 exposure TWA.
bullet      [OSHA's former limit for carbon dioxide was 5000 ppm as an 8-hour TWA.]
bullet      OSHA recommends a lowest oxygen concentration of 19.5% in the work place for a full work-shift exposure. As we calculated above, for the indoor workplace oxygen level to reach 19.5% (down from its normal 20.9% oxygen level in outdoor air) by displacement of oxygen by CO2, that is, to reduce the oxygen level by about 6%, the CO2 or carbon dioxide level would have to increase to about 1.4% 14,000 ppm.
In summary, OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% CO2 (5,000 ppm) averaged over a 40 hour week, 3% (3,000 ppm) average for a short-term (15 minute) exposure [we discuss and define "short term exposure limits" STEL below], and 4% (40,000 ppm) as the maximum instantaneous limit considered immediately dangerous to life and health.

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:10am:

Life flourished on Earth when co2 was up to 20 X what it is today.

That's based on the original Geocarb project (Berner et al). Do you notice the error in that determination?

It's anything from 2000 ppm to 8000 ppm. Berner stated that the study should not be used as an indication of Phanerozoic CO2 levels and in the the original study, the graph just showed changes in CO2 without concentrations.

By the way, that CO2 peak occurred during the Cambrian period. At that time, there were no land plants or animals.
We've had this conversation before on here.

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:11am:

What are the Allowable Limits of CO2 EXPOSURE Carbon dioxide exposure limits PEL and TLV set by OSHA and NIOSH

If anything, that confirms what I said before.

Funny how the climate hysterics have determined that 280ppm is the ideal level for co2, even though levels have fluctuated wildly throughout Earths history, meanwhile greenhouses are fed co2 at levels over a 1000ppm, I guess no one told the plants what the ideal level was.  ;D

Narsty stuff that co2  ;D


Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are bolstering plant life throughout the world, environmental scientists report in a newly published peer-reviewed study. The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, are gleaned from satellite measurements of global plant life, and contradict assertions by activists that global warming is causing deserts to expand, along with devastating droughts.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/

Isn't it funny that the "greens" are dead against the greening of the planet  ;D

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/scripts/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/imagemanager/files/Kremlik/500million.jpg



Here is the original caption for that graph:

Quote:

History of Atmospheric CO2 through geological time (past 550 million years: from Berner, Science, 1997). The parameter RCO2 is defined as the ratio of the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere at some time in the past to that at present (with a pre-industrial value of 300 parts per million). The heavier line joining small squares represents the best estimate of past atmospheric CO2 levels based on geochemical modeling and updated to have the effect of land plants on weathering introduced 380 to 350 million years ago. The shaded area encloses the approximate range of error of the modeling based on sensitivity analysis. Vertical bars represent independent estimates of CO2 level based on the study of ancient soils.

So the maximum value on that line is 20 and the preindustrial CO2 is 300. 20 x 300 = 6000ppm.

Of course, it's immaterial that the ocean floor temperature was around 28 degrees C, compared to about 4 degrees today. There was no terrestrial life at that time. That's a famous Monckton blooper by the way. 

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:41am:

Narsty stuff that co2  ;D Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are bolstering plant life throughout the world, environmental scientists report in a newly published peer-reviewed study. The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, are gleaned from satellite measurements of global plant life, and contradict assertions by activists that global warming is causing deserts to expand, along with devastating droughts. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/

Yeah. The projections show that some latitudes will benefit from moderately higher CO2 but on the balance, the effect will be negative. The problem is that it won't stay at that level.

For higher projections still, all latitudes are projected  crop losses of up to 50%.

Rubbish  :)

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:39am:

Funny how the climate hysterics have determined that 280ppm is the ideal level for co2, even though levels have fluctuated wildly throughout Earths history, meanwhile greenhouses are fed co2 at levels over a 1000ppm, I guess no one told the plants what the ideal level was.  ;D

Well I'm not aware that anybody has determined an ideal level of CO2. Maybe some over-enthusiastic newspaper reports, but I doubt if any responsible scientist would say that.

Some plants benefit from increased CO2 levels, but 80% of agriculture is currently not irrigated and we have a growing world population to feed. We're on a knife edge as far as widespread famine is concerned.

CO2 levels were higher during the Jurassic, but it was a hot steamy place.  You certainly couldn't grow any of the staple food crops in those conditions.

This issue is not about cuddly polar bears. It's about the continuation of civilisation.

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:49am:

Rubbish  :)

Do you have a link for that, or was it a visceral reaction?

I notice that you haven't backed up your claim that all life would die at 150 ppm CO2 and have wandered away from that point. 

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:42am:

Isn't it funny that the "greens" are dead against the greening of the planet  ;D

I'm not a Green. I'm a survivalist.

Too much "www.scepticalscience" will rot yer brains  ;D

Moore: 'CO2 is lower today than it has been through most of the history of life on earth...At 150 ppm CO2 all plants would die, resulting in virtual end of life on earth'


http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/07/13/greenpeace-cofounder-dr-patrick-moore-thank-goodness-we-came-along-reversed-150-millionyear-trend-of-reduced-co2-levels-in-global-atmosphere-long-live-the-humans/

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:57am:

Too much "www.scepticalscience" will rot yer brains  ;D

How about Columbia University and the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Florida,?

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2002/20/c020p259.pdf

This shows crop losses of up to 55%. Check Table 2.

Quote:

Table 2. Summary of simulation results expressed as percent yield change from baseline (1951−1994) simulations. For each of 5 crops, intervals represent the range across simulated production sites

That's just one of many agricultural studies that take into account changes in temperature CO2 and precipitation.

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 8:03am:

Moore: 'CO2 is lower today than it has been through most of the history of life on earth...At 150 ppm CO2 all plants would die, resulting in virtual end of life on earth' http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/07/13/greenpeace-cofounder-dr-patrick-moore-thank-goodness-we-came-along-reversed-150-millionyear-trend-of-reduced-co2-levels-in-global-atmosphere-long-live-the-humans/

Patrick Moore was an Astronomer, and there was no scientific paper involved. It was a false statement as I've demonstrated. Atmospheric CO2 has been around 150 ppm several times in the last 400,000 years and also during the late Pliocene, 3 million years ago.  The evidence that it's nonsense  is the fact that life didn't go extinct during those periods.  C3- photosynthesising plants might have been at a low, but they survived.

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 8:07am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 7:57am: Too much "www.scepticalscience" will rot yer brains  ;D How about Columbia University and the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Florida,? http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2002/20/c020p259.pdf This shows crop losses of up to 55%. Check Table 2. Quote: Table 2. Summary of simulation results expressed as percent yield change from baseline (1951−1994) simulations. For each of 5 crops, intervals represent the range across simulated production sites That's just one of many agricultural studies that take into account changes in temperature CO2 and precipitation.

Gobbledeygook  ;D


Try this ...   http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

That actually confirms the "gobbledegook which you didn't bother to read. There is a short term improvement under some conditions (well watered, not too hot)

Yeah sure, thats why satellites are showing a planet wide greening as plant life soaks up the extra co2, certain conditions my arse.   ;D

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:37am:

That actually confirms the "gobbledegook which you didn't bother to read. There is a short term improvement under some conditions (well watered, not too hot)

Define "short term".

While you're at it, define "long term".

And, most importantly, do your definitions of these terms ever change?

This is getting tiresome and will no doubt try muso's patience, but here goes (again):

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

... Why couldn't you just answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no' ? ...

So:
a) you believe that all questions can be answered either 'yes' or 'no'. That is, you're a simpleton or;
b) you pretend to believe so. That is, you're a troll.


greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 12:33pm:

... I doubt if there are many on here who are as far to the left as I am. ...

Is a left-wing troll any less a troll? Is a left-wing simpleton any less a simpleton?

As I've already pointed out, you've given no cause to suppose that you believe a word you say. There's no reason to give you credit for any politics at all - a complete vacuum, in more ways than one.


greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 12:33pm:

... They also assume that just because of my open-minded scepticism, ...

Which you've failed to substantiate on so many occasions that I've lost count.


greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 12:51pm:

# wrote on Sep 29th, 2013 at 7:30am: ... Global warming; remember that? You treat it as a joke. au contraire What I do treat as a joke is closed-minded fools who have no capacity to think for themselves, ...

That reminds me of a comment I encountered while researching Andrew Khan (Poptech)
Quote:

That’s right Andrew, do you support child molestation? If not, you’re a COLLECTIVIST. Do you believe in moon landing conspiracy theorists? If not, you’re BRAINWASHED. Do you exercise your freedom to smoke pot? If not, you HATE FREEDOM. Do you believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories? No? You’re not a FREE THINKER. Do you have empirical evidence you were born from your mother’s womb? If not, you believe it on FAITH, NOT FACT. Do you respond to criticism? YES, that means you’re DESPERATE AND SCARED THAT PEOPLE READ FACTS. Do you ignore some? YES, because you’re afraid of giving FACTS the attention it deserves, which would CHANGE MINDS OF THINKING PEOPLE.

Mind you, Andrew at least seems to believe something. That is to say, he shows more integrity than you.


greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 2:21pm:

... This issue isn't about partisan politics, or consensus: it's about science. ...

So you're saying the  the scientists reached their consensus on a basis other than science? I'll be interested to see your substantiation of that.


muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 2:49pm:

Maybe you should talk about the science then. I shouldn't be so hard on Ajax. At least he tries to do that.

Ajax too shows more integrity than greggerypeccary.


greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:06pm:

... I've dealt with many alarmists. What I have learned is that it's a complete waste of time discussing the science with them  They simply do not wish to listen to anything that differs from their own preconceived, arrogant views. As the previous poster said: it's more like a religion with you alarmists.  In all my years, I have never encountered a more closed-minded group of people (except perhaps religious fundamentalists). ...

Which brings us back to the above comments about Andrew Khan.


greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:32pm:

... I've never encountered a more closed-minded or arrogant group of people in my life.

Look in a mirror.


greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Moreover, I've lost count of the amount of times that you and other alarmists have used the term 'consensus'.  Just more evidence of your complete lack of understanding when it comes to science. ...

So what are your credentials?


greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

... I'm not adverse to onanism ...

It's been suggested that the reason you don't substantiate anything is that it would mean more typing. That might require you to use both hands on the keyboard.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 12:27pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 10:37am: That actually confirms the "gobbledegook which you didn't bother to read. There is a short term improvement under some conditions (well watered, not too hot) Define "short term". While you're at it, define "long term". And, most importantly, do your definitions of these terms ever change?

:-/

# wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 12:46pm:

So you're saying the  the scientists reached their consensus on a basis other than science?

http://www.englishforeveryone.org/Topics/Reading-Comprehension.htm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 11:31am:

Yeah sure, thats why satellites are showing a planet wide greening as plant life soaks up the extra co2, certain conditions my arse.   ;D

That is predicted, even up to a concentration of 550 ppm, but not for all regions. The worst losses are above 2 degrees of warming.

It might be an idea if you gained some knowledge of what you're arguing against instead of relying on blogs.

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:37am:

That actually confirms the "gobbledegook which you didn't bother to read. There is a short term improvement under some conditions (well watered, not too hot)

Define "short term".

While you're at it, define "long term".

And, most importantly, do your definitions of these terms ever change?

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:24pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 11:31am: Yeah sure, thats why satellites are showing a planet wide greening as plant life soaks up the extra co2, certain conditions my arse.   ;D That is predicted, even up to a concentration of 550 ppm, but not for all regions. The worst losses are above 2 degrees of warming. It might be an idea if you gained some knowledge of what you're arguing against instead of relying on blogs.

I rely on peer reviewed science, if thats not good enough for you I don't know what is  :D

THe IPCC has a number of scenarios. I think I explained that it relates to a warming of about 2 degrees against the average temperature of the decade up to 1990.

In this context, I mean that short term is up to that level of warming.  Once you go significantly above that level, some more serious effects start to kick in.

That's the level that was selected for minimum risk.  You're best to refer to the IPCC Report for more, but I can explain in greater depth if you want. 

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:31pm:

THe IPCC has a number of scenarios. I think I explained that it relates to a warming of about 2 degrees against the average temperature of the decade up to 1990. In this context, I mean that short term is up to that level of warming.  Once you go significantly above that level, some more serious effects start to kick in. That's the level that was selected for minimum risk.  You're best to refer to the IPCC Report for more, but I can explain in greater depth if you want.

Is this another one of the famous IPCC models http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:27pm:

I rely on peer reviewed science, if thats not good enough for you I don't know what is  :D

Well the Patrick Moore was straight from a blog. It wasn't peer reviewed science. I haven't seen anything from you in that category yet. 

Of course there are a couple of publications out there that don't have much of a Peer Review Process. Environment and Energy accepts all kind of oddball papers, including one that claimed that the sun was made of iron. They went through the peer review process, and it failed all reviews. They published it anyway.  There is another. I can't remember its name offhand. 

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:33pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 1:31pm: THe IPCC has a number of scenarios. I think I explained that it relates to a warming of about 2 degrees against the average temperature of the decade up to 1990. In this context, I mean that short term is up to that level of warming.  Once you go significantly above that level, some more serious effects start to kick in. That's the level that was selected for minimum risk.  You're best to refer to the IPCC Report for more, but I can explain in greater depth if you want.  Is this another one of the famous IPCC models http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif

The IPCC doesn't have any models. The IPCC reports draw on virtually all climate research.

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:31pm:

but I can explain in greater depth if you want.

Very unlikely, considering you can't define a simple term.

You're trolling. I explained what I meant. "Short term" is not a scientific term. I was just trying to explain it to you in those terms. 

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:43pm:

You're trolling. I explained what I meant. "Short term" is not a scientific term. I was just trying to explain it to you in those terms.

I'm not trolling at all.

I'm asking a perfectly legitimate question in response to your post.

In the context of your statement, what do you consider the be "short term"?

You know exactly where I'm heading with my question, and you know it will expose a huge flaw in your "argument".

Just another example of why the AGW alarmists simply cannot be taken seriously.  Once they know things aren't going their way, they avoid all debate.

White flag accepted.

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:36pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 1:27pm: I rely on peer reviewed science, if thats not good enough for you I don't know what is  :D Well the Patrick Moore was straight from a blog. It wasn't peer reviewed science. I haven't seen anything from you in that category yet.

I told you to have a look at this http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php its got lots of peer reviewed experiments of many plant types and the positive effects of more co2.

It's not a representative cross section of papers.  The agenda is pretty obvious when you see which "scientists" are involved.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:45pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 1:43pm: You're trolling. I explained what I meant. "Short term" is not a scientific term. I was just trying to explain it to you in those terms.  I'm not trolling at all. I'm asking a perfectly legitimate question in response to your post. In the context of your statement, what do you consider the be "short term"? You know exactly where I'm heading with my question, and you know it will expose a huge flaw in your "argument". Just another example of why the AGW alarmists simply cannot be taken seriously.  Once they know things aren't going their way, they avoid all debate. White flag accepted.

Didn't I answer your question previously in terms of 2 degrees of warming? Wrong answer?

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 2:25pm:

It's not a representative cross section of papers.  The agenda is pretty obvious when you see which "scientists" are involved.

OMG you've got to be kidding me, you global warming hysterics are a riot, you just don't want to know do you, go and sacrifice a virgin, you'll feel a lot better  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 2:37pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 2:25pm: It's not a representative cross section of papers.  The agenda is pretty obvious when you see which "scientists" are involved. OMG you've got to be kidding me, you global warming hysterics are a riot, you just don't want to know do you, go and sacrifice a virgin, you'll feel a lot better  ;D

That's the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. It's a private organisation owned by the Idso Family.  If you look at the Staff, they are all Idsos.

Most of the "papers" are not published in any scientific journal. They are self published by the Idso family.

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:49am:

Rubbish  :)

Guess who had a dismissive Daddykins! Mummy never helped you did she??

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:30pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 9:21pm: The CO2 concentration has already been at 150 ppm and life is still existing on Earth. Although you may not know it, what you are claiming from that is a high climate sensitivity. So is cliamte sensitivity high or low? You can't have it both ways. No sorry but 150ppm is the generally accepted level at which life on Earth would cease, currently we are at historically low levels of co2, the only way is up, anyone that wants to restrict co2 levels is an enemy of life, studies have shown that co2 levels of 1200ppm have amazing positive effects on plant and tree growth, of course that doesn't help much for the end of the worlders though  ;D

um, SO I ONCE AGAIN NOTE THAT THIS CONVERSATION TOTALLY REJECTS THE NOTION THAT RATES OF CHANGE ARE IMPORTANT!!

...my my my how this conversation needs to be remined about the importance of rates of change...