Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong.
The research, by a team led by the University of NSW, says a 4-degree rise in temperature would be potentially catastrophic for agriculture in warm regions of the world, including Australia.
It cracks open one of the biggest problems in climate science

Forecasts in many climate models for lower temperature rises were based on assumptions that clouds might help limit temperature increases.

But the team claims to have found the key to predicting cloud behaviour, and forecasts that clouds will not be nearly as helpful as thought in many models.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-planet-to-warm-by-4-degrees-by-2100-20131231-304nw.html#ixzz2pBlFCLa6

How's the other team from the university of nsw going? You know, the numpties stuck in ice on the Ship of Fools?

Rider wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:42am:

How's the other team from the university of nsw going? You know, the numpties stuck in ice on the Ship of Fools?

Perhaps you could explain something to me which has confused me on the issue:

1) Why is a ship stuck in ice news?  Hundred get stuck every year.
2) Why is it suprising that a ship travelling in an ice sheet can get temporarily trapped as the ice sheet ebs and flows around it.
3) How does a ship deliberately travelling in an ice sheet prove or disprove global warming.
4) Why is anyone on that ship, doing scientific research for the betterment of mankind, a numpty?


All it proves to me is how stupid and desperate the deniers are.  If I go driving in my car in mud, I bound to get bogged at some point. Mud is caused by rain, rain is weather, weather is linked to climate. If I got bogged, would the right wing conga line have a w@nk session at my expense, or what ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:30am:

Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong.

Goodness me, I better ensure I am ready for this when I am 122 or so....

Did you know the Sun is actually dying?

What's going to happen when the sun burns out, the oceans dry up and vegetation dies???

What are we doing about this???

I blame Tony Abbott. We need a Sun Tax. Everyone knows the entire planet rests on what 20 million people on a land mass the other side of the world do.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:51am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:30am: Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong. Goodness me, I better ensure I am ready for this when I am 122 or so....

That's the problem with the flat earth deniers, they don't care about their kids and future generations, just their own pockets.

4 degrees locked in...  ;D ;D ;D

http://www.yasminboland.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/yellow_guy_crazy_hg_wht.gif

may well be true dr. jolly, but the solution will have to come from each individual acting to do something , it will not come from governments trying to impose a solution.

kevins "greatest moral challenge of our time" idea, faded into the dust within a few months.

like most things action at a community level may be very helpful, tree planting, car pooling, land care, water conservation, recycling, etc etc
action from canberra will be a total nonsense (seems to be a theme here)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:51am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:30am: Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong. Goodness me, I better ensure I am ready for this when I am 122 or so....

And here people we have the greatest problem.

It's all about ME

The 1st Generation to think exclusively about itself & not improving the lot for their children & future generations.

In fact actively ignoring warnings/predictions based solely on the fact that they may curtail their excess.

2 daughters I believe Andrei, why don't you ask them or your grandchildren.

Does any of the conservative posters here understand the effects of catastrophic climate change and it's effect onto future budgets of Australia?


Or are they like tony abbott, economic illiterates?

http://www.yasminboland.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/yellow_guy_crazy_hg_wht.gif

Do you understand anything Greens?????

I'm confused why this matters, tony the masterful has already solved climate change.  That's why he's removed anyone and everyone who could possibly provide him with some information on the subject.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:56am:

may well be true dr. jolly, but the solution will have to come from each individual acting to do something , it will not come from governments trying to impose a solution. kevins "greatest moral challenge of our time" idea, faded into the dust within a few months. like most things action at a community level may be very helpful, tree planting, car pooling, land care, water conservation, recycling, etc etc action from canberra will be a total nonsense (seems to be a theme here)

Kevin was correct in his call of "greatest moral challenge", but in his defense he is only a politicians, and politicians must yield to the will of the people, and the people of 2008 werent united behind action.

The vast majority of co2 poluting industries are locked up in government providers or government contracts. Serious action must come from the governments of the world.

Climate scientists have been hard at work again  ;D





http://future-forcast.co.uk/crystal-ball/images/crystalBall1.jpg

Australia's coal expansion risks stranded assets with global warming


Australia's headlong expansion of coal mining for export carries substantial investment risks of stranding assets says a new report from Oxford University. Previous warnings regarding potential risks of a carbon bubble have been made by Carbon Tracker, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and International Energy Agency (IEA).

During December 2013 the Abbott Federal Government gave approval for massive coal port expansion in Queensland at Abbot Point and expansion of coal seam gas (CSG) facilities in Gladstone. It also approved the third coal mine to operate in the Galilee basin 450km from the coast. Environmental approval processes were also passed to the authority of State Governments to streamline further mining approvals, as well as Federal funding immediately cut to Environmental Defenders Offices in each state.

In the conclusion of the report on the risk of stranded assets, Ben Caldecott, James Tilbury and Yuge Ma state:

"It is clear that China’s coal demand patterns are changing as a result of environment-related factors and consequently less coal will be consumed than is currently expected by many owners and operators of coal assets. Given China’s growing role as the price setter in global and regional coal markets; falling demand will, all things being equal, reduce coal prices. This would result in coal assets under development becoming stranded, or operating mines only covering their marginal costs and subsequently failing to provide a sufficient return on investment."

Coal and Carbon bubble asset risks and China

The decisions to expand coal production ignore the long term climate impacts of the coal and gas being exported and burnt producing carbon emissions. The approval process also fails to take into account the increasing investment risks of substantial fossil fuel development at a time when scientists say most unexploited fossil fuels need to stay in the ground to avoid dangerous levels of climate change exceeding of 2 degrees Celsius as agreed at the 2009 Copenhagen climate talks.

The new report - Stranded Down Under? Environment-related factors changing China’s demand for coal and what this means for Australian coal assets - was published on 16th December. Authored by Ben Caldecott, James Tilbury and Yuge Ma from the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University, it provides a detailed warning that Australian coal infrastructure assets face a substantial risk of becoming stranded.

http://indymedia.org.au/2013/12/27/australias-coal-expansion-risks-stranded-assets-with-global-warming


More catastrophic climate change economics from the economic illiterate cons.


It is time that super funds are banned from coal investments so to protect the longterm security of these funds.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:53am:

Did you know the Sun is actually dying?

It's not. It's a main sequence star that will still sustain life on earth for hundreds of millions of years unless we do something really stupid.


Quote:

What's going to happen when the sun burns out, the oceans dry up and vegetation dies???

If we keep burning fossil fuels as fast as the deniers with shares in Big Oil want, there is a chance that we would find out in our lifetime rather than hundreds of millions of years hence.

It's not what we know that we should fear. It's what we don't know. We don't yet know what effect warming the permafrost in the Arctic to melting point will have. We don't know how much methane will be released from that permafrost if it is warmed enough to allow that methane to escape. We don't yet know how the methane clathrates in our oceans will react to being warmed. We don't know how much methane there is trapped in the environment. We do not know for sure if and whether there's a tipping point with environmental methane that would rapidly escalate out of control if pushed too far. We don't know a lot of things about our planet.

But here is what we do know. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. We have no control over how quickly it is released from natural sources. And when it starts being released it will add to global warming.

The worst-case scenarios associated with environmental methane are unlikely but they are not impossible. I would rather not find out when it's too late.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:47am:

Rider wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:42am: How's the other team from the university of nsw going? You know, the numpties stuck in ice on the Ship of Fools? Perhaps you could explain something to me which has confused me on the issue: 1) Why is a ship stuck in ice news?  Hundred get stuck every year. Really, not that many get stuck. 2) Why is it suprising that a ship travelling in an ice sheet can get temporarily trapped as the ice sheet ebs and flows around it. Temporarily? They've been trapped since Christmas Eve! 3) How does a ship deliberately travelling in an ice sheet prove or disprove global warming. It doesn't, but recent studies prove that ice around the polar regions is at its thickest levels in decades, not thinnest. 4) Why is anyone on that ship, doing scientific research for the betterment of mankind, a numpty? They were re-creating a historical expedition, with some scientific measuring done along the way. Don't make it out to be more than it really is. All it proves to me is how stupid and desperate the deniers are.  If I go driving in my car in mud, I bound to get bogged at some point. Mud is caused by rain, rain is weather, weather is linked to climate. If I got bogged, would the right wing conga line have a w@nk session at my expense, or what ? Only a leftard would be stupid enough to attempt to drive a CAR through mud when a 4WD would be a better choice!

i actually accept the science as it makes sense. the storage of fossil fuels occured over millions of years and is endothermic.

to burn them all in 2 centuries is hugely exothermic.

i just disagree with the response.
lets be pragmatic.  people arent going to turn off their air cons or stop driving their fat lazy kids 3 km to school.

we need to get behind local action (not tonys rediculous "direct action' which will create another groups of government tit-suckers).

and, we need to prepare by storing water, gm heat resistant crops, cyclone proof dwellings all the way to sydney, reduce population (geez, stopping the boats and the baby bonus may actually make sense) ;)

i dont think a democratic government can do much that is effective.  china would have more hope of a centralised solution. its going to be unpopular to tell people they cant have air con and drive their cars on meaningless trips  ;) no votes in it, so neither side will get serious about it

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:53am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:47am: 2) Why is it suprising that a ship travelling in an ice sheet can get temporarily trapped as the ice sheet ebs and flows around it. Temporarily? They've been trapped since Christmas Eve!

That's two weeks. Doesn't mean it's not temporary.


Quote:

3) How does a ship deliberately travelling in an ice sheet prove or disprove global warming. It doesn't, but recent studies prove that ice around the polar regions is at its thickest levels in decades, not thinnest.

Citation needed. Show us these peer-reviewed studies that are published in reputable scientific journals.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:47am:

Rider wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:42am: How's the other team from the university of nsw going? You know, the numpties stuck in ice on the Ship of Fools? Perhaps you could explain something to me which has confused me on the issue: 1) Why is a ship stuck in ice news?  Hundred get stuck every year. Because the ship that did it 100 years ago didnt get stuck. 100 YEARS AGO lol 2) Why is it suprising that a ship travelling in an ice sheet can get temporarily trapped as the ice sheet ebs and flows around it. As above 3) How does a ship deliberately travelling in an ice sheet prove or disprove global warming. As above, less ice 100 years ago 4) Why is anyone on that ship, doing scientific research for the betterment of mankind, a numpty? Because they hired a ship that isnt an ice breaker. They, the numpties, think they can forecast for 100 years, yet cant even forecast ice a week ahead of a trip. Bldy numpty activists dressed up as scientists. All it proves to me is how stupid and desperate the deniers are.  If I go driving in my car in mud, I bound to get bogged at some point. Mud is caused by rain, rain is weather, weather is linked to climate. If I got bogged, would the right wing conga line have a w@nk session at my expense, or what ?

Concerted global cooperation in 1987 stabilized the ozone hole. Could the same happen for global warming if nations cooperate?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/

And about that pathetic 4 degrees locked in catastrophic its worse than we thought BS

They take away the cooler models that are closer to what reality of mother nature have shown and what they do is make the models look even worse. Pure stupidity of them to ewant to do that, but hey, they are idiots activists after all.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 10:05am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:47am: Rider wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:42am: How's the other team from the university of nsw going? You know, the numpties stuck in ice on the Ship of Fools? Perhaps you could explain something to me which has confused me on the issue: 1) Why is a ship stuck in ice news?  Hundred get stuck every year. Because the ship that did it 100 years ago didnt get stuck. 100 YEARS AGO lol 2) Why is it suprising that a ship travelling in an ice sheet can get temporarily trapped as the ice sheet ebs and flows around it. As above 3) How does a ship deliberately travelling in an ice sheet prove or disprove global warming. As above, less ice 100 years ago 4) Why is anyone on that ship, doing scientific research for the betterment of mankind, a numpty? Because they hired a ship that isnt an ice breaker. They, the numpties, think they can forecast for 100 years, yet cant even forecast ice a week ahead of a trip. Bldy numpty activists dressed up as scientists. All it proves to me is how stupid and desperate the deniers are.  If I go driving in my car in mud, I bound to get bogged at some point. Mud is caused by rain, rain is weather, weather is linked to climate. If I got bogged, would the right wing conga line have a w@nk session at my expense, or what ?

"Hundreds get stuck every year", not "100 years since a ship got stuck", you moron.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 10:43am:

Concerted global cooperation in 1987 stabilized the ozone hole. Could the same happen for global warming if nations cooperate? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/

The CFC producing companies are a lot smaller and a lot less powerful than fossil fuel companies.

No countries economy relied on CFC exports as far as I know.

But, you are right, it gives hope that science can influence decision making for the better.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:58am:

i actually accept the science as it makes sense. the storage of fossil fuels occured over millions of years and is endothermic. to burn them all in 2 centuries is hugely exothermic. i just disagree with the response. lets be pragmatic.  people arent going to turn off their air cons or stop driving their fat lazy kids 3 km to school. we need to get behind local action (not tonys rediculous "direct action' which will create another groups of government tit-suckers). and, we need to prepare by storing water, gm heat resistant crops, cyclone proof dwellings all the way to sydney, reduce population (geez, stopping the boats and the baby bonus may actually make sense) ;) i dont think a democratic government can do much that is effective.  china would have more hope of a centralised solution. its going to be unpopular to tell people they cant have air con and drive their cars on meaningless trips  ;) no votes in it, so neither side will get serious about it

Just to pick up on one of your points, I think we can see the reluctance of any government to "cyclone proof dwellings" north of 33 degress, as it sounds a lot like a "pink batts" scheme. And the cost would be astronomical.

Australia can do enough green house mitigation just by changing its electricity production away from coal. Punters can keep driving their SUV's to the shops all they want.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 11:02am:

Punters can keep driving their SUV's to the shops all they want.

Fortunately the fetish of these large, thirsty vehicles is limited by the fuel supply.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 10:56am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 10:05am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:47am: Rider wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:42am: How's the other team from the university of nsw going? You know, the numpties stuck in ice on the Ship of Fools? Perhaps you could explain something to me which has confused me on the issue: 1) Why is a ship stuck in ice news?  Hundred get stuck every year. Because the ship that did it 100 years ago didnt get stuck. 100 YEARS AGO lol 2) Why is it suprising that a ship travelling in an ice sheet can get temporarily trapped as the ice sheet ebs and flows around it. As above 3) How does a ship deliberately travelling in an ice sheet prove or disprove global warming. As above, less ice 100 years ago 4) Why is anyone on that ship, doing scientific research for the betterment of mankind, a numpty? Because they hired a ship that isnt an ice breaker. They, the numpties, think they can forecast for 100 years, yet cant even forecast ice a week ahead of a trip. Bldy numpty activists dressed up as scientists. All it proves to me is how stupid and desperate the deniers are.  If I go driving in my car in mud, I bound to get bogged at some point. Mud is caused by rain, rain is weather, weather is linked to climate. If I got bogged, would the right wing conga line have a w@nk session at my expense, or what ? "Hundreds get stuck every year", not "100 years since a ship got stuck", you moron.

Try reading it again. Cods never said it's been 100 years since the last ship got stuck in ice there. It was actually that the voyage of the ship those scientists are re-creating didn't get stuck in the ice 100 years ago. READ!!!  ::)

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 10:56am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 10:05am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:47am: Rider wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:42am: How's the other team from the university of nsw going? You know, the numpties stuck in ice on the Ship of Fools? Perhaps you could explain something to me which has confused me on the issue: 1) Why is a ship stuck in ice news?  Hundred get stuck every year. Because the ship that did it 100 years ago didnt get stuck. 100 YEARS AGO lol 2) Why is it suprising that a ship travelling in an ice sheet can get temporarily trapped as the ice sheet ebs and flows around it. As above 3) How does a ship deliberately travelling in an ice sheet prove or disprove global warming. As above, less ice 100 years ago 4) Why is anyone on that ship, doing scientific research for the betterment of mankind, a numpty? Because they hired a ship that isnt an ice breaker. They, the numpties, think they can forecast for 100 years, yet cant even forecast ice a week ahead of a trip. Bldy numpty activists dressed up as scientists. All it proves to me is how stupid and desperate the deniers are.  If I go driving in my car in mud, I bound to get bogged at some point. Mud is caused by rain, rain is weather, weather is linked to climate. If I got bogged, would the right wing conga line have a w@nk session at my expense, or what ? "Hundreds get stuck every year", not "100 years since a ship got stuck", you moron.

Ah but, you moron, they are following the path of a ship that 100 years ago, did not get stuck in the same place, you moron. Thats why it is news you moron, because you, you moron, asked.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 12:34pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 10:56am: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 10:05am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:47am: Rider wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:42am: How's the other team from the university of nsw going? You know, the numpties stuck in ice on the Ship of Fools? Perhaps you could explain something to me which has confused me on the issue: 1) Why is a ship stuck in ice news?  Hundred get stuck every year. Because the ship that did it 100 years ago didnt get stuck. 100 YEARS AGO lol 2) Why is it suprising that a ship travelling in an ice sheet can get temporarily trapped as the ice sheet ebs and flows around it. As above 3) How does a ship deliberately travelling in an ice sheet prove or disprove global warming. As above, less ice 100 years ago 4) Why is anyone on that ship, doing scientific research for the betterment of mankind, a numpty? Because they hired a ship that isnt an ice breaker. They, the numpties, think they can forecast for 100 years, yet cant even forecast ice a week ahead of a trip. Bldy numpty activists dressed up as scientists. All it proves to me is how stupid and desperate the deniers are.  If I go driving in my car in mud, I bound to get bogged at some point. Mud is caused by rain, rain is weather, weather is linked to climate. If I got bogged, would the right wing conga line have a w@nk session at my expense, or what ? "Hundreds get stuck every year", not "100 years since a ship got stuck", you moron. Try reading it again. Cods never said it's been 100 years since the last ship got stuck in ice there. It was actually that the voyage of the ship those scientists are re-creating didn't get stuck in the ice 100 years ago. READ!!!  ::)

The point is technically correct, but it is also irrelevant. It is confusing climate with weather. A comparison of the weather now and 100 years ago is not evidence of climate. It's a bit like saying that the current heatwave in South Australia is evidence of global warming. It's not.

skippy. wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:53am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:51am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:30am: Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong. Goodness me, I better ensure I am ready for this when I am 122 or so.... That's the problem with the flat earth deniers, they don't care about their kids and future generations, just their own pockets.

This is the problem with Global Warming Disciples, they can't see sense if you slapped them in the face with it...

All of the shorter term predictions have all been 100% wrong so now they're trying to make predictions 100 years out  ;D

As an avid watcher of weekly temperatures and weather , and many people are, they can't even get temperatures and weather right a few days ahead... nor predict with any accuracy of climate within the year...

They just don't know, and that includes the shame climate gods ICPP... they are nothing but political idiots who get told what to preach  ::)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 12:34pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 10:56am: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 10:05am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:47am: Rider wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:42am: How's the other team from the university of nsw going? You know, the numpties stuck in ice on the Ship of Fools? Perhaps you could explain something to me which has confused me on the issue: 1) Why is a ship stuck in ice news?  Hundred get stuck every year. Because the ship that did it 100 years ago didnt get stuck. 100 YEARS AGO lol 2) Why is it suprising that a ship travelling in an ice sheet can get temporarily trapped as the ice sheet ebs and flows around it. As above 3) How does a ship deliberately travelling in an ice sheet prove or disprove global warming. As above, less ice 100 years ago 4) Why is anyone on that ship, doing scientific research for the betterment of mankind, a numpty? Because they hired a ship that isnt an ice breaker. They, the numpties, think they can forecast for 100 years, yet cant even forecast ice a week ahead of a trip. Bldy numpty activists dressed up as scientists. All it proves to me is how stupid and desperate the deniers are.  If I go driving in my car in mud, I bound to get bogged at some point. Mud is caused by rain, rain is weather, weather is linked to climate. If I got bogged, would the right wing conga line have a w@nk session at my expense, or what ? "Hundreds get stuck every year", not "100 years since a ship got stuck", you moron. Try reading it again. Cods never said ....

Cods and progressiveslol are the same person ??

True Blue... wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:02pm:

skippy. wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:53am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:51am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:30am: Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong. Goodness me, I better ensure I am ready for this when I am 122 or so.... That's the problem with the flat earth deniers, they don't care about their kids and future generations, just their own pockets. This is the problem with Global Warming Disciples, they can't see sense if you slapped them in the face with it... All of the shorter term predictions have all been 100% wrong so now they're trying to make predictions 100 years out  ;D

The "shorter term" predictions have not been wrong.  Only the ones made up by deniers have been wrong, probably because being wrong is familiar to them.

This was shown in another thread. When deniers were asked to show a scientific prediction that was wrong, they couldnt.  Best they could do was one by Al Gore for 2016, which for those observant among us will know is still a way off, and Al Gore aint a scientist.

Anyway, back on topic.

Can we have a show of hands as to how many people the earth could support if 4 degrees hotter than now ?

My estimation is population will peak around 2065 as food shortages (or expense) intersect with normal population increases.  Population will stagnate for the next 30 to 40 years, but quality of life will drop for all, then we will see a steady decrease as we find the new equilibrium point.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:03pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 12:34pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 10:56am: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 10:05am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:47am: Rider wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:42am: How's the other team from the university of nsw going? You know, the numpties stuck in ice on the Ship of Fools? Perhaps you could explain something to me which has confused me on the issue: 1) Why is a ship stuck in ice news?  Hundred get stuck every year. Because the ship that did it 100 years ago didnt get stuck. 100 YEARS AGO lol 2) Why is it suprising that a ship travelling in an ice sheet can get temporarily trapped as the ice sheet ebs and flows around it. As above 3) How does a ship deliberately travelling in an ice sheet prove or disprove global warming. As above, less ice 100 years ago 4) Why is anyone on that ship, doing scientific research for the betterment of mankind, a numpty? Because they hired a ship that isnt an ice breaker. They, the numpties, think they can forecast for 100 years, yet cant even forecast ice a week ahead of a trip. Bldy numpty activists dressed up as scientists. All it proves to me is how stupid and desperate the deniers are.  If I go driving in my car in mud, I bound to get bogged at some point. Mud is caused by rain, rain is weather, weather is linked to climate. If I got bogged, would the right wing conga line have a w@nk session at my expense, or what ? "Hundreds get stuck every year", not "100 years since a ship got stuck", you moron. Try reading it again. Cods never said .... Cods and progressiveslol are the same person ??

lol thanks for the compliment. Cods is cool.  ;D

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:09pm:

Cods is cool.

I can only think of one person who would say that...i




... cods.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:05pm:

True Blue... wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:02pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:53am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:51am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:30am: Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong. Goodness me, I better ensure I am ready for this when I am 122 or so.... That's the problem with the flat earth deniers, they don't care about their kids and future generations, just their own pockets. This is the problem with Global Warming Disciples, they can't see sense if you slapped them in the face with it... All of the shorter term predictions have all been 100% wrong so now they're trying to make predictions 100 years out  ;D The "shorter term" predictions have not been wrong.  Only the ones made up by deniers have been wrong, probably because being wrong is familiar to them. This was shown in another thread. When deniers were asked to show a scientific prediction that was wrong, they couldnt.  Best they could do was one by Al Gore for 2016, which for those observant among us will know is still a way off, and Al Gore aint a scientist.

Bulldust... everything Tim Flannery predicted was 1oo% wrong ...everything...

True Blue... wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:19pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:05pm: True Blue... wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:02pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:53am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:51am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:30am: Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong. Goodness me, I better ensure I am ready for this when I am 122 or so.... That's the problem with the flat earth deniers, they don't care about their kids and future generations, just their own pockets. This is the problem with Global Warming Disciples, they can't see sense if you slapped them in the face with it... All of the shorter term predictions have all been 100% wrong so now they're trying to make predictions 100 years out  ;D The "shorter term" predictions have not been wrong.  Only the ones made up by deniers have been wrong, probably because being wrong is familiar to them. This was shown in another thread. When deniers were asked to show a scientific prediction that was wrong, they couldnt.  Best they could do was one by Al Gore for 2016, which for those observant among us will know is still a way off, and Al Gore aint a scientist. Bulldust... everything Tim Flannery predicted was 1oo% wrong ...everything...

Everything you heard, yet nothing he predicted.

There is a big conspiracy here, but its not where you think it is.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 11:02am:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:58am: i actually accept the science as it makes sense. the storage of fossil fuels occured over millions of years and is endothermic. to burn them all in 2 centuries is hugely exothermic. i just disagree with the response. lets be pragmatic.  people arent going to turn off their air cons or stop driving their fat lazy kids 3 km to school. we need to get behind local action (not tonys rediculous "direct action' which will create another groups of government tit-suckers). and, we need to prepare by storing water, gm heat resistant crops, cyclone proof dwellings all the way to sydney, reduce population (geez, stopping the boats and the baby bonus may actually make sense) ;) i dont think a democratic government can do much that is effective.  china would have more hope of a centralised solution. its going to be unpopular to tell people they cant have air con and drive their cars on meaningless trips  ;) no votes in it, so neither side will get serious about it Just to pick up on one of your points, I think we can see the reluctance of any government to "cyclone proof dwellings" north of 33 degress, as it sounds a lot like a "pink batts" scheme. And the cost would be astronomical. Australia can do enough green house mitigation just by changing its electricity production away from coal. Punters can keep driving their SUV's to the shops all they want.

do you find it interesting... that we are encouraging almost demanding everyone put solar panels on their roof tops?..

SOLAR meaning sun..

not only that there are solar Power stations all over the planet....

attracting the sun.. the heat..will these work against us? :o :o

or maybe just maybe what we are doing now... will reverse GW...I mean isnt that the whole point???...what is the point of a CARBON TAX if nothing changes ::) ::)

I dont think I buy this latest science...unless they show me their crystal ball... which is another thing I dont believe in.. ::)

Ok, there have been a few predicitions that have been wrong.

Back in  late 2007: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announces that the planet will see a one degree Celsius temperature increase due to climate change by 2100.

We are now expected to go past 1 degree warming in the next 5-10 years.

This proves everything the IPCC says is bogus!.  ::)

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:35pm:

Ok, there have been a few predicitions that have been wrong. Back in  late 2007: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announces that the planet will see a one degree Celsius temperature increase due to climate change by 2100. We are now expected to go past 1 degree warming in the next 5-10 years. This proves everything the IPCC says is bogus!.  ::)

The IPCC also said global temperatures are rising at an alarming rate, small seaside nations and atolls will be submerged by melting polar ice, etc, etc. Only problem is that there's been no warming in 16 years and polar ice is at its thickest levels in decades...

cods wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:34pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 11:02am: aquascoot wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:58am: i actually accept the science as it makes sense. the storage of fossil fuels occured over millions of years and is endothermic. to burn them all in 2 centuries is hugely exothermic. i just disagree with the response. lets be pragmatic.  people arent going to turn off their air cons or stop driving their fat lazy kids 3 km to school. we need to get behind local action (not tonys rediculous "direct action' which will create another groups of government tit-suckers). and, we need to prepare by storing water, gm heat resistant crops, cyclone proof dwellings all the way to sydney, reduce population (geez, stopping the boats and the baby bonus may actually make sense) ;) i dont think a democratic government can do much that is effective.  china would have more hope of a centralised solution. its going to be unpopular to tell people they cant have air con and drive their cars on meaningless trips  ;) no votes in it, so neither side will get serious about it Just to pick up on one of your points, I think we can see the reluctance of any government to "cyclone proof dwellings" north of 33 degress, as it sounds a lot like a "pink batts" scheme. And the cost would be astronomical. Australia can do enough green house mitigation just by changing its electricity production away from coal. Punters can keep driving their SUV's to the shops all they want. do you find it interesting... that we are encouraging almost demanding everyone put solar panels on their roof tops?.. SOLAR meaning sun.. not only that there are solar Power stations all over the planet.... attracting the sun.. the heat..will these work against us? :o :o or maybe just maybe what we are doing now... will reverse GW...I mean isnt that the whole point???...what is the point of a CARBON TAX if nothing changes ::) ::) I dont think I buy this latest science...unless they show me their crystal ball... which is another thing I dont believe in.. ::)

Firstly, progs (If I may call you that), solar panels dont attract the sun like some sort of photon magnet that you seem to think they do. Those rays were falling to earth, solar panel, or not.

Secondly solar panels are less efficient the hotter it gets, which is obviously not so good in a 4 degree hotter world.

The Carbon tax has only just started. It makes renewable investment more attractive, and provides money for investment into renewables. Its only early days, it will take time to make an impact. Power stations arent build in months.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:58am:

i actually accept the science as it makes sense. the storage of fossil fuels occured over millions of years and is endothermic. to burn them all in 2 centuries is hugely exothermic.

It's not the exothermic chemical reactions that are the primary driver of climate change but the ability of gas molecules with more than two atoms to absorb and reradiate infrared radiation. It's why CO₂, H₂O, CH₄ and various CFCs are greenhouse gases but the main atmospheric gases N₂, O₂ and Ar are not. These latter gases have only one or two atoms and cannot trap infrared radiation effectively.

Here is a simple example that illustrates the problem. Ever notice how an overcast night is typically warmer than a night with clear skies? The extra water vapour in the clouds does that.


Quote:

i just disagree with the response. lets be pragmatic.  people arent going to turn off their air cons or stop driving their fat lazy kids 3 km to school.

People will be happy to run their aircons if they've got an array of solar panels on their roof providing the power. Cars are a bit more of a problem, but in some cases public transport options are available.


Quote:

we need to get behind local action (not tonys rediculous "direct action' which will create another groups of government tit-suckers).

Fair enough. I do not think that the central planning of "direct action" will work. It spends taxpayers' money without transparency. It is a model that is far too likely to end with some scandal of ministerial favouritism. Minister Hunt is delusional if he thinks it will be in place for decades. It won't.

A fixed carbon price is not the best model either. It is too inflexible.

IMO the best model is an ETS with a price that is allowed to move freely according to a global market. It will to some extent replace the interest rates set by the RBA as a driver in the economy.


Quote:

and, we need to prepare by storing water, gm heat resistant crops, cyclone proof dwellings all the way to sydney, reduce population (geez, stopping the boats and the baby bonus may actually make sense) ;)

http://australia.gov.au/sites/default/files/global_site/library/images/australian_stories/farmgoyderline_web.jpg
There are many things that we need to do, not all of them are cheap and not all would be popular. Goyder's Line is a line drawn on a map of South Australia that was drawn in about 1865 based on the 12-inch rainfall line. To the south agricultural land is deemed fit for cropping. To the north land is only fit for grazing. The cropping land is more valuable. Do we need to redraw Goyder's Line?


Quote:

i dont think a democratic government can do much that is effective.  china would have more hope of a centralised solution. its going to be unpopular to tell people they cant have air con and drive their cars on meaningless trips  ;) no votes in it, so neither side will get serious about it

Democracies could enact long-term carbon mitigation policies that provide stability and certainty for business. Any that do not will find free trade harder to secure in countries and regions with an active carbon market.

The "Direct Action Plan" is a short-term folly that will not last past the lifetime of the Abbott government. The plan with the best long-term chance of success is an ETS with a link to carbon trading markets in other countries.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:38pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:35pm: Ok, there have been a few predicitions that have been wrong. Back in  late 2007: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announces that the planet will see a one degree Celsius temperature increase due to climate change by 2100. We are now expected to go past 1 degree warming in the next 5-10 years. This proves everything the IPCC says is bogus!.  ::) The IPCC also said global temperatures are rising at an alarming rate, small seaside nations and atolls will be submerged by melting polar ice, etc, etc. Only problem is that there's been no warming in 16 years and polar ice is at its thickest levels in decades...

Australia just recorded its hottest year ever. Stop with the no-warming BS already.

When did the IPCC say small seaside nations would be submerged, and which ones were they ?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:38pm:

small seaside nations and atolls will be submerged by melting polar

Tell that to the Maldives & Tuvalu


Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:38pm:

melting polar ice

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:38pm:

polar ice is at its thickest levels in decades

Sea Ice which you are referring to here wrongly as Polar Ice (so as too make stupid/naive people believe the whole Polar Region) melting will have no effect on sea levels, as their volume is already in the current levels.
A bit like when the ice in your glass of coke melts, yet your table remain dry.

The Ice that will cause increased sea levels is the land ice such as Glaciers & Ice Sheets, how are they going Teaspoon increasing or decreasing.

Whats your opinion on the Permafrost melting & the subsequent release of the much more active Greenhouse gas Methane.

You either don't know what you are talking about & supporting or your being willfully misleading which is it?

cods wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:34pm:

I dont think I buy this latest science...unless they show me their crystal ball... which is another thing I dont believe in.. ::)

It's got nothing to do with a crystal ball.

We have vested interests (such as Big Oil) who are actively sabotaging climate research for their own ends. A lot of this "climate change is crap" disinformation ultimately comes from vested interests in the fossil fuel industry.

Big Oil also sabotage the public interest in other ways. For example, Chevron (an oil company) owns the patent rights to NiMH batteries for automotive use. It's why hybrid vehicles are easy to buy and and electric ones are not. It's why hybrid vehicles have a petrol engine. It's why hybrid vehicles do not ship from the factory with the ability to be recharged from a standard power supply - even though it is technically quite easy to add it later as an aftermarket modification. It's why NiMH batteries for cars are very tightly controlled. It's why the electric RAV4 was killed off very quickly in the USA - Chevron sued it out of existence, including the spare parts market. Chevron do not want the public to be weaned off their product - oil - and want to delay the inevitable for as long as they can.

As for climate science itself, it is a complex discipline that combines material from meteorology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer modelling and other sciences. It is a rigorous field, with the quality control of peer review just like any other scientific endeavour. It is simply wrong for the ignorant to be going around making the accusations that they do.

I have never, ever seen anyone who makes these kind of accusations point out exactly where the climate scientists got it wrong in a rigorous manner that does not in some way resort to fallacies, abuse the scientific process or abuse mathematics. Every single time - without exception - someone's either just throwing mud (as cods is above), or providing something that purports to be evidence that does not actually stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

Take Andrew Bolt for example. He is notorious for this. His favourite trick is the cherrypick, the careful selection of data to support his point while concealing from the reader the vast bulk of the data that doesn't. One of his articles asserted that sea levels were not rising, even though articles in scientific journals clearly showed that they were. He based his article on the readings from three stations in the Arctic. What the article didn't mention is that (1) just about every other station all over the world was showing this rise in sea levels, and (2) the stations in the Arctic are affected by post-glacial rebound, where the ground is still slowly springing back after having the weight of an ice sheet two kilometres thick removed from it 11,000 years ago. His article did not mention post-glacial rebound.

This is where the real crooks and charlatans are in climate science - not the scientists who do their work objectively and with full scientific rigour, but the vested interests protecting their market and commentators who take up Big Oil's cudgel and use it to beat the truth into submission.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:47pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:38pm: small seaside nations and atolls will be submerged by melting polar Tell that to the Maldives & Tuvalu Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:38pm: melting polar ice Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:38pm: polar ice is at its thickest levels in decades Sea Ice which you are referring to here wrongly as Polar Ice melting will have no effect on sea levels, as their volume is already in the current levels. A bit like when the ice in your glass of coke melts, yet your table remain dry. The Ice that will cause increased sea levels is the land ice such as Glaciers & Ice Sheets, how are they going Teaspoon increasing or decreasing. You either don't know what you are talking about & supporting or your being willfully misleading which is it?

Let me guess.  With a rapid increase in sea temperatures offsetting modest gains in air temperatures, I'd say the ice sheet is in deep poo.

Putting a iceblock in a cup of hot tea.

Deniers may be patting themselves on the back that the sea has absorbed more heat than the atmosphere, but that will end up being a worse outcome.

I can tell that - we're having a cool summer overall at the moment.... must be global warming... though if the cloud cover etc persists, winter will be warmer on average...

People Like Teaspoon denied the effects of smoking right up until the early 90's.

Using the same tricks as they use today for Climate change.

They'll deny & cherry pick convenient events until the sea is lapping at their front step & then blame the Government & the scientific community for not doing anything.

If its good enough for David Attenborough its good enough for me


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JmrmwIyhAE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK47Pnx46rM

And the solution is what?  We impose a Carbon Tax on the Australian people because we 'have a high carbon footprint per capita' - derived from looking at comparative populations with china - where per capita of Chinese INDUSTRIAL Man their output is vastly higher... and strut the world stage as being a 'front runner in ending climate change'!

For what?  So that Indonesia can continue to choke my lady in KL with burning off of Orang Utan habitation, China and India can choke their populations on industrial smog, and the West can subside into neo-peasantry and import goods slavery to China and India, with accompanying deep and permanent poverty for many etc?  And Clive of the Indian Investor and Gina Stoneheart can continue to offshore billions of tons of coal etc to these same massive polluters, so they can enrich THEIR 'better' classes of Robber Barons at the expense of the majority who will receive two pence a day or unemployment - take it or leave it?

(previous Chinese president family net worth - $200 billion - incoming only a peasant on $40 billion... Indian billionaires on billions while billions starve on a few lentils, women are taken into organ harvesting slavery and prostitution slavery, and the peasants chance snake bite in the paddy fields or dysentery death from the Ganges)....

My lady from China just last week, while visiting her - commented that she was amazed at the blue of the sky. something she had not seen for years.....

The ONLY thing that will save this planet from any 'global warming' will be World War III created by the downturn in resources and the opportunity to dispose of marketable goods.... and the crash of the petroleum-based 'easy energy' economy into The Greatest Depression that is the prelude to World War IV....

Oh - and the collapse of thet book larnin' as a substitute for ability to DO things (just threw that in for my critics here)....

and maybe for Australia the long-awaited Revolution that Ned Kelly tried to foment way back... for the same reasons...

There have been plenty of studies that have shown we can overt global warming with the cost only being a few % points off GDP.

We need the will to do it though. The will to force our leaders into action, and for them to influence other leaders to do the same.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:39pm:

cods wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:34pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 11:02am: aquascoot wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:58am: i actually accept the science as it makes sense. the storage of fossil fuels occured over millions of years and is endothermic. to burn them all in 2 centuries is hugely exothermic. i just disagree with the response. lets be pragmatic.  people arent going to turn off their air cons or stop driving their fat lazy kids 3 km to school. we need to get behind local action (not tonys rediculous "direct action' which will create another groups of government tit-suckers). and, we need to prepare by storing water, gm heat resistant crops, cyclone proof dwellings all the way to sydney, reduce population (geez, stopping the boats and the baby bonus may actually make sense) ;) i dont think a democratic government can do much that is effective.  china would have more hope of a centralised solution. its going to be unpopular to tell people they cant have air con and drive their cars on meaningless trips  ;) no votes in it, so neither side will get serious about it Just to pick up on one of your points, I think we can see the reluctance of any government to "cyclone proof dwellings" north of 33 degress, as it sounds a lot like a "pink batts" scheme. And the cost would be astronomical. Australia can do enough green house mitigation just by changing its electricity production away from coal. Punters can keep driving their SUV's to the shops all they want. do you find it interesting... that we are encouraging almost demanding everyone put solar panels on their roof tops?.. SOLAR meaning sun.. not only that there are solar Power stations all over the planet.... attracting the sun.. the heat..will these work against us? :o :o or maybe just maybe what we are doing now... will reverse GW...I mean isnt that the whole point???...what is the point of a CARBON TAX if nothing changes ::) ::) I dont think I buy this latest science...unless they show me their crystal ball... which is another thing I dont believe in.. ::) Firstly, progs (If I may call you that), solar panels dont attract the sun like some sort of photon magnet that you seem to think they do. Those rays were falling to earth, solar panel, or not. Secondly solar panels are less efficient the hotter it gets, which is obviously not so good in a 4 degree hotter world. The Carbon tax has only just started. It makes renewable investment more attractive, and provides money for investment into renewables. Its only early days, it will take time to make an impact. Power stations arent build in months.

Alright skippy. You made your point  ;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 2:59pm:

There have been plenty of studies that have shown we can overt global warming with the cost only being a few % points off GDP. We need the will to do it though. The will to force our leaders into action, and for them to influence other leaders to do the same.

SHOW ME!

Well the smart solution would be to pour money into R&D for renewable technology on a global scale, say 5% of each nations GDP.
These discoveries are exempt from patents & the advances are shared world wide.
No Private Companies making Billions & charging exhorbadent prices.

Unfortunately I agree with you, we will choose WWIII started by food/fresh water shortages & mass migration.

On the positive side it will also address the elephant in the room of global population.

Given that Australia contributes 1.3% to this 4 degree increase - what will a 4% reduction in this 1.3% do for the 4 degree increase?

SFA

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 2:47pm:

If its good enough for David Attenborough its good enough for me

1 billion muslims think theres an allah too, if its good enough for 1 billion muslims why isn't it good enough for you?, its very unscientific using the x amount of people say its true so it must be true scenario.

Maqqa wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 3:28pm:

Given that Australia contributes 1.3% to this 4 degree increase - what will a 4% reduction in this 1.3% do for the 4 degree increase? SFA

So fix the problem requires long term thinking.

Short term, looking after one's self only, will not provide a solution.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 3:34pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: If its good enough for David Attenborough its good enough for me 1 billion muslims think theres an allah too, if its good enough for 1 billion muslims why isn't it good enough for you?, its very unscientific using the x amount of people say its true so it must be true scenario.

Big difference in an actual person who has spent his life documenting earth & its life, against a mystical being no one can prove exists.

But hey whatever helps you think your on a winner ;)

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 3:34pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: If its good enough for David Attenborough its good enough for me 1 billion muslims think theres an allah too, if its good enough for 1 billion muslims why isn't it good enough for you?, its very unscientific using the x amount of people say its true so it must be true scenario.

Silly analogy. When you need a scientific question answered, you ask a scientist. Not a shock jock or a graduate of women's studies as a number of deniers do.

Thats just plain stupid.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:51am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:30am: Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong. Goodness me, I better ensure I am ready for this when I am 122 or so....

You'd best get your daughters SPAYED, then, so you won't have the fate of any grand-children and great-grand-children to worry about

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 3:34pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: If its good enough for David Attenborough its good enough for me 1 billion muslims think theres an allah too, if its good enough for 1 billion muslims why isn't it good enough for you?, its very unscientific using the x amount of people say its true so it must be true scenario.

Yeh lets just ignore that..... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

My favourite part of the report and the but that really sinks it is the admission my the Professor that current climate models are rightly mocked for being very way off and so he produces models that are even further off!!!

it's hard to do anything but laugh.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 2:22pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:47pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:38pm: small seaside nations and atolls will be submerged by melting polar Tell that to the Maldives & Tuvalu Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:38pm: melting polar ice Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:38pm: polar ice is at its thickest levels in decades Sea Ice which you are referring to here wrongly as Polar Ice melting will have no effect on sea levels, as their volume is already in the current levels. A bit like when the ice in your glass of coke melts, yet your table remain dry. The Ice that will cause increased sea levels is the land ice such as Glaciers & Ice Sheets, how are they going Teaspoon increasing or decreasing. You either don't know what you are talking about & supporting or your being willfully misleading which is it? Let me guess.  With a rapid increase in sea temperatures offsetting modest gains in air temperatures, I'd say the ice sheet is in deep poo. Putting a iceblock in a cup of hot tea. Deniers may be patting themselves on the back that the sea has absorbed more heat than the atmosphere, but that will end up being a worse outcome.

actually dopey dora...  its like putting ice cubes in an environment with is now -54C and used to be -56C.

how much ice do you think is going to melt????

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 3:39pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:28pm: Given that Australia contributes 1.3% to this 4 degree increase - what will a 4% reduction in this 1.3% do for the 4 degree increase? SFA So fix the problem requires long term thinking.

well bugger me...

why didn't you just say so 10 years ago..

all this worry and catastrophe could have been averted if a genius like you cold have just come forward sooner...







;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


this could be Kevin Rudd in disguise folks...

he likes to do a lot of "THINKING"

Lets get 100 of Australia's "brightest" and most "creative" to "THINK" of all this great stuff that we can think of..

it'll be great... thinking thinking thinking... we're going to create a bright new economy by all this thinking we're doing and by the power of "THINKING" get world peace and fix the climate (although there's nothing wrong with it)

fair dinkum...  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 1:21pm:

True Blue... wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:19pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:05pm: True Blue... wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:02pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:53am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:51am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:30am: Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong. Goodness me, I better ensure I am ready for this when I am 122 or so.... That's the problem with the flat earth deniers, they don't care about their kids and future generations, just their own pockets. This is the problem with Global Warming Disciples, they can't see sense if you slapped them in the face with it... All of the shorter term predictions have all been 100% wrong so now they're trying to make predictions 100 years out  ;D The "shorter term" predictions have not been wrong.  Only the ones made up by deniers have been wrong, probably because being wrong is familiar to them. This was shown in another thread. When deniers were asked to show a scientific prediction that was wrong, they couldnt.  Best they could do was one by Al Gore for 2016, which for those observant among us will know is still a way off, and Al Gore aint a scientist. Bulldust... everything Tim Flannery predicted was 1oo% wrong ...everything... Everything you heard, yet nothing he predicted. There is a big conspiracy here, but its not where you think it is.

listen pal... I know what I heard and who from... there's a conspiracy alright..

and its with you Climate Disciples..

Tim in 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM_C_-2MGWU

since he opened his stupid trap here QLD dams (and others around Australia) have overflowed... Brisbane streets have been flooded.. river systems have been overflowing...

but then he does a backflip and says.. yeah.. all of this rain is Global Warming.. yeah honest, we predicted it..

what?  :o :o :o :o

;D

http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae269/oldpom/flannery-ultimate-prediction-600.gif

It's a myth that a global warming climate precludes the possibility of colder weather. Weather and climate are not the same.

True Blue... wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 5:54pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:21pm: True Blue... wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:19pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:05pm: True Blue... wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 1:02pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:53am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:51am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:30am: Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong. Goodness me, I better ensure I am ready for this when I am 122 or so.... That's the problem with the flat earth deniers, they don't care about their kids and future generations, just their own pockets. This is the problem with Global Warming Disciples, they can't see sense if you slapped them in the face with it... All of the shorter term predictions have all been 100% wrong so now they're trying to make predictions 100 years out  ;D The "shorter term" predictions have not been wrong.  Only the ones made up by deniers have been wrong, probably because being wrong is familiar to them. This was shown in another thread. When deniers were asked to show a scientific prediction that was wrong, they couldnt.  Best they could do was one by Al Gore for 2016, which for those observant among us will know is still a way off, and Al Gore aint a scientist. Bulldust... everything Tim Flannery predicted was 1oo% wrong ...everything... Everything you heard, yet nothing he predicted. There is a big conspiracy here, but its not where you think it is. listen pal... I know what I heard and who from... there's a conspiracy alright.. and its with you Climate Disciples.. Tim in 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM_C_-2MGWU since he opened his stupid trap here QLD dams (and others around Australia) have overflowed... Brisbane streets have been flooded.. river systems have been overflowing... but then he does a backflip and says.. yeah.. all of this rain is Global Warming.. yeah honest, we predicted it.. what?  :o :o :o :o ;D http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae269/oldpom/flannery-ultimate-prediction-600.gif

Flim Flam Flannery, the epitomy of the AGW loon

Bam wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 6:22pm:

It's a myth that a global warming climate precludes the possibility of colder weather. Weather and climate are not the same.

Yeah we saw the updated memo to all the warming disciples that was introduced when the drought broke and the cold weather and floods came back  http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 6:44pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 6:22pm: It's a myth that a global warming climate precludes the possibility of colder weather. Weather and climate are not the same. Yeah we saw the updated memo to all the warming disciples that was introduced when the drought broke and the cold weather and floods came back  http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif

Yes the precise moment when global warming morphed into climate change.

Sad desperate tax payer teat sucking rent seeking grant addicted fraudulent data manipulating scum fvcks one and all. Game is up you warmist fools.

Bam wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 6:22pm:

It's a myth that a global warming climate precludes the possibility of colder weather. Weather and climate are not the same.

except when there is a heatwave and it is global warming but when it is extended cooling it is just weather, not climate.

you clowns want to have every side of the argument.... and you are still losing it.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 3:41pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:34pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: If its good enough for David Attenborough its good enough for me 1 billion muslims think theres an allah too, if its good enough for 1 billion muslims why isn't it good enough for you?, its very unscientific using the x amount of people say its true so it must be true scenario. Silly analogy. When you need a scientific question answered, you ask a scientist. Not a shock jock or a graduate of women's studies as a number of deniers do. Thats just plain stupid.

Excuse me, how dare you call Mr Abbott stupid. He consults Alan and Eva Cox all the time.

Well, he leaves Eva Cox to his Chief of Staff. They talk about those private women's issues that turn Mr Abbott's stomach so.

Alan, of course, is much more accommodating.

Anyway, Mr Abbott is out there fighting fires as we speak, so you'd think he'd know a thing or two about climate change. Yes, leftards, we can feel safe with Mr Abbott at the wheel.

What a tall glass of water our PM is. How marvellous to be Matty's Prime Minister.

Thank heavens the grown-ups are back in charge.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 3:41pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:34pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: If its good enough for David Attenborough its good enough for me 1 billion muslims think theres an allah too, if its good enough for 1 billion muslims why isn't it good enough for you?, its very unscientific using the x amount of people say its true so it must be true scenario. Silly analogy. When you need a scientific question answered, you ask a scientist. Not a shock jock or a graduate of women's studies as a number of deniers do. Thats just plain stupid.

yes, i tend to agree.  it was listening to david attenborrough talk on the subject that changed my mind and converted me from being a sceptic.  actually i would be happy to see david elected as world fuhrer and given total power to impose a solution.  this may be effective. ;)
you see, there is no problem with submitting ones will to those one considers above them in the peck order.  david is pure genius on mother earth. if he believes, i believe. ;)

Rider wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 7:03pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 6:44pm: ... Yeah we saw the updated memo to all the warming disciples that was introduced when the drought broke and the cold weather and floods came back  ... Yes the precise moment when global warming morphed into climate change. Sad desperate tax payer teat sucking rent seeking grant addicted fraudulent data manipulating scum fvcks one and all. Game is up you warmist fools.

Unfortunately for Conservatives, it's they who decided "Global Warming" is out and "Climate Cahnge" is in. The first reference is more comprehensive, but the source will probably give denialists indigestion. The second is nice and safe.

‘Climate Change’ vs. ‘Global Warming’
Some myths pushed by the anti-science crowd are so laughably backwards that repeating them should be grounds for expulsion from homo ‘sapiens’ sapiens.  And so it is with the doubly wrong claim that progressives are now using the term ‘climate change’ because the planet has supposedly stopped warming.

Of course, it hasn’t actually stopped warming (see NASA reports the 12-month running mean global temperature has reached a new record in 2010 “” despite recent minimum of solar irradiance:  “We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade” and “there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s”).

But since the deniers make up stuff about the science, why shouldn’t they make up stuff about everything else?  The most recent iteration of the dumbest denier myth came from hominid Tim Phillips, president of Americans For Prosperity, the anti-science, anti-EPA, polluter-funded group that is a driving force behind the Tea Party:

Quote:

We started looking now at the scientific impact and the fact that over the last ten years it appears it was cooling and not warming. Hence the name change, you notice how it went from “global warming” to “climate change.” Whenever the left gets in trouble, they change the name! It was liberals, now the public has repudiated liberalism, and now it’s “progressivism.” They did the same thing with “global warming” and switched over to “climate change.”

Progressivism, of course, is a very old idea.

Actually it is conservatives who typically change the names of things, ...

In a confidential 2003 memo, Luntz asserted that the Administration and conservatives should stop using the term “global warming” because it was too frightening:

Quote:

It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation. 1) “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

Origin of the phrase ‘climate change’? Blame it on Bush
... A letter to the editor of The Oregonian:

Quote:

“Climate change” is politically correct nonsense, but Republican pollster Frank Luntz and George W. Bush are to blame, not Al Gore. Luntz sold the phrase to Bush: “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” While “global warming” has catastrophic connotations attached, “climate change” suggests a more controllable challenge. Bush agreed.     Republican political appointees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where I was a biologist, forced scientists to always use “climate change” instead of the accurate and alarming “global warming.”     DAVE MILLER     Astoria

Tim Flannery has proven to be the greatest doomsday proclaimer this Country has ever had.

His prediction of running out of water exposed just how out of touch this fool is, yet the media continues to wheel this dickhead out so he can make yet more dire predictions.

Don't know about you guys but I think Tim Flannery needs to be put in a bottle with a cork in it. :D

aquascoot wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 6:38am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:41pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:34pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: If its good enough for David Attenborough its good enough for me 1 billion muslims think theres an allah too, if its good enough for 1 billion muslims why isn't it good enough for you?, its very unscientific using the x amount of people say its true so it must be true scenario. Silly analogy. When you need a scientific question answered, you ask a scientist. Not a shock jock or a graduate of women's studies as a number of deniers do. Thats just plain stupid. if he believes, i believe. ;)

and that's what a good Disciple does...

just follows an ideology blindly no matter what...

good boy ...

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 7:17am:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 6:38am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:41pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:34pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: If its good enough for David Attenborough its good enough for me 1 billion muslims think theres an allah too, if its good enough for 1 billion muslims why isn't it good enough for you?, its very unscientific using the x amount of people say its true so it must be true scenario. Silly analogy. When you need a scientific question answered, you ask a scientist. Not a shock jock or a graduate of women's studies as a number of deniers do. Thats just plain stupid. if he believes, i believe. ;) and that's what a good Disciple does... just follows an ideology blindly no matter what... good boy ...

Yet the only loony disciples are the ones following the advice of shock jocks over that of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.. Too funny magoo.

skippy. wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 7:28am:

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 7:17am: aquascoot wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 6:38am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:41pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:34pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 2:47pm: If its good enough for David Attenborough its good enough for me 1 billion muslims think theres an allah too, if its good enough for 1 billion muslims why isn't it good enough for you?, its very unscientific using the x amount of people say its true so it must be true scenario. Silly analogy. When you need a scientific question answered, you ask a scientist. Not a shock jock or a graduate of women's studies as a number of deniers do. Thats just plain stupid. if he believes, i believe. ;) and that's what a good Disciple does... just follows an ideology blindly no matter what... good boy ... Yet the only loony disciples are the ones following the advice of shock jocks over that of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.. Too funny magoo.

sure bro...

when your climate nonsense falls into a back hole im sure you'll find another activist to follow...

http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae269/oldpom/temps.png

Lol dodgy graphs. The weapon of the loony fringe.
How about some real facts  from real experts? We wait and wait and wait  yet all we get are shock jocks and loony cyclops Lords with as much expertise in climate as you have in reality.

Oh PS, for every dodgy graph you have there are thousands more that are recognised by real science as factual, it must suck to be a loony.

skippy. wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 7:56am:

Oh PS, for every dodgy graph you have there are thousands more that are recognised by real science as factual, it must suck to be a loony.

its not a dodgy graph you nincompoop...

its a government document...

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 7:58am:

skippy. wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 7:56am: Oh PS, for every dodgy graph you have there are thousands more that are recognised by real science as factual, it must suck to be a loony. its not a dodgy graph you nincompoop... its a government document...

Prove it. Then prove that you're qualified to interpret it.

daily telegraph 3 Jan 2014
Brekkie Wrap: Winnipeg endures temperatures colder than Mars;
Paw weather... Christina Kistler walks her dog Sheldon in the snow in Albany, New York. Snow and bone-chilling temperatures greeted morning commuters across New York on their first work day of 2014. Source: AP
A CANADIAN city has shivered into the New Year with temperatures plummeting to -37.9C, which is colder than the surface of Mars.

Winnipeg had its coldest day in 80 years on New Year's Eve, and with the windchill factor it felt like -48C for the city's more than 600,000 residents. By contrast, the Mars Curiosity rover recorded a temperature of -29C on the desolate surface of the red planet. And the northeast US is also bracing for heavy snow, strong winds and frigid temperatures today with New York in the storm's path and up to two feet of snow forecast for the Boston area

# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:18am:

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 7:58am: skippy. wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 7:56am: Oh PS, for every dodgy graph you have there are thousands more that are recognised by real science as factual, it must suck to be a loony. its not a dodgy graph you nincompoop... its a government document... Prove it. Then prove that you're qualified to interpret it.

you mean all those that dare to comment on GW.. are professors. of climate change science???...

WOW I didnt know that.

are they not wasted on  here??? ::) :D ::)

"True Blue" gets his climate change information from a graduate from womens studies. This has been proven.


Now, this is not a dig a True Blue, because in denier circles anyone with a degree is the enemy. cods and his many aliases (progs, IB, etc) wouldnt even consider asking an educated person. Anyone with an education or even remotely clever is an elitist revolutionary coming to eat babies. They know better.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:30am:

Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong.

Is this like all the polar ice predicting models that forecast loss of ice when in fact there is far more ice than ever?

It has been confirmed Australia has had its hottest year since records began.

cods wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:22am:

# wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:18am: True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 7:58am: skippy. wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 7:56am: Oh PS, for every dodgy graph you have there are thousands more that are recognised by real science as factual, it must suck to be a loony. its not a dodgy graph you nincompoop... its a government document... Prove it. Then prove that you're qualified to interpret it. you mean all those that dare to comment on GW.. are professors. of climate change science???... ...

True Blue... implies that the graph supports his case. To do that, he needs to interpret it. As anyone who's looked into climate science knows, it's a complex field. If True Blue... isn't qualified to draw that implication, then he's essentially lying.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:27am:

It has been confirmed Australia has had its hottest year since records began.

since records began?

and how many billions of years old is the earth?

::)

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:24am:

"True Blue" gets his climate change information from a graduate from womens studies. This has been proven. Now, this is not a dig a True Blue, because in denier circles anyone with a degree is the enemy. cods and his many aliases (progs, IB, etc) wouldnt even consider asking an educated person. Anyone with an education or even remotely clever is an elitist revoluitionary coming to eat babies. They know better.

I would believe a good investigative journalist any day than one of your eco loon Activists...

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:30am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:24am: "True Blue" gets his climate change information from a graduate from womens studies. This has been proven. Now, this is not a dig a True Blue, because in denier circles anyone with a degree is the enemy. cods and his many aliases (progs, IB, etc) wouldnt even consider asking an educated person. Anyone with an education or even remotely clever is an elitist revoluitionary coming to eat babies. They know better. I would believe a good investigative journalist any day than one of your eco loon Activists...

So, you believe a graduate of womans studies vs these prestigeous institutions:

Academies of science
Joint national science academy statements
Polish Academy of Sciences
United States National Research Council
Royal Society of New Zealand
European Science Foundation
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
Geological Society of America
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization


to name but a few.

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:28am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:27am: It has been confirmed Australia has had its hottest year since records began. since records began? and how many billions of years old is the earth? ::)

Another stupid thought bubble probably provided by your lesbian advisers.

What does it matter what the earth was 1 billion years ago, when humans didnt even exist and the earth was simply a rock.   Do you want it to be a rock again ?

Dont worry, the earth and mother nature will survive the most extreme climate change. Mankind may not. Thats what I care about.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:37am:

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:30am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:24am: "True Blue" gets his climate change information from a graduate from womens studies. This has been proven. Now, this is not a dig a True Blue, because in denier circles anyone with a degree is the enemy. cods and his many aliases (progs, IB, etc) wouldnt even consider asking an educated person. Anyone with an education or even remotely clever is an elitist revoluitionary coming to eat babies. They know better. I would believe a good investigative journalist any day than one of your eco loon Activists... So, you believe a graduate of womans studies vs these prestigeous institutions: Academies of science Joint national science academy statements Polish Academy of Sciences United States National Research Council Royal Society of New Zealand European Science Foundation American Chemical Society American Institute of Physics American Physical Society Australian Institute of Physics European Physical Society American Geophysical Union European Federation of Geologists Geological Society of America American Meteorological Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Royal Meteorological Society (UK) American Academy of Pediatrics American College of Preventive Medicine American Medical Association American Public Health Association Australian Medical Association World Federation of Public Health Associations World Health Organization to name but a few.

I would believe in my own instincts rather than those who have to campaign (scare the government) for extra funding...

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:43am:

... I would believe in my own instincts rather than those who have to campaign (scare the government) for extra funding...

Ahh.. yes. All the world be mad, except you and those who think like you.

It a conspiracy. Aaalll a conspiracy.

Conspiracy.

Conspiracy ...

::)

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:43am:

I would believe in my own instincts rather than those who have to campaign (scare the government) for extra funding...

Instincts eh?  Do you trust your own instincts when you break your leg, or do you trust a doctor.

At least you admit that your denierism is based on faith.

The world must be coming to an end.  Conservatives and lesbians,  gut feel over imperical evidence,  cats lie with dogs.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:47am:

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:43am: I would believe in my own instincts rather than those who have to campaign (scare the government) for extra funding... Instincts eh?  Do you trust your own instincts when you break your leg, or do you trust a doctor. At least you admit that your denierism is based on faith. The world must be coming to an end.  Conservatives and lesbians,  gut feel over imperical evidence,  cats lie with dogs.

faith?

no, that's for you disciples...

I can see, hear and feel all by myself...

everything I've seen over the past 10 years, 20 years, has been the same all my life...

I listen to the older generations who have seen it all... seen times of drought, warmer decades, colder decades... all going in cycles and its no different today...

I've lived by the coast most of my life... when I go down to the beach I don't see one millimetre difference in the water levels... except for tidal variations...

nothings changed in climate... the world goes through its cycles and no one fully understands how it does... and if they do i'll show you a liar..

apart from you that is... 

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:56am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:47am: True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:43am: I would believe in my own instincts rather than those who have to campaign (scare the government) for extra funding... Instincts eh?  Do you trust your own instincts when you break your leg, or do you trust a doctor. At least you admit that your denierism is based on faith. The world must be coming to an end.  Conservatives and lesbians,  gut feel over imperical evidence,  cats lie with dogs. faith? no, that's for you disciples... I can see, hear and feel all by myself... everything I've seen over the past 10 years, 20 years, has been the same all my life... I listen to the older generations who have seen it all... seen times of drought, warmer decades, colder decades... all going in cycles and its no different today... I've lived by the coast most of my life... when I go down to the beach I don't see one millimetre difference in the water levels... except for tidal variations... nothings changed in climate... the world goes through its cycles and no one fully understands how it does... and if they do i'll show you a liar.. apart from you that is...

Your head is so far up your arse.

So, you expect us to ignore all the scientifically measured data around the world, because you, some random, havent "noticed" any change at whatever shithole beach you frequent "most" of the time.

Hmmm, let me think.
I think I'll stick with science, instead of a faith based, lesbian logic, nutter on a forum.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 6:44pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 6:22pm: It's a myth that a global warming climate precludes the possibility of colder weather. Weather and climate are not the same. Yeah we saw the updated memo to all the warming disciples that was introduced when the drought broke and the cold weather and floods came back  http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif

Obviously you are one of those that doesn't know the difference. I would explain but I doubt you would understand the explanation.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:59am:

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:56am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:47am: True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:43am: I would believe in my own instincts rather than those who have to campaign (scare the government) for extra funding... Instincts eh?  Do you trust your own instincts when you break your leg, or do you trust a doctor. At least you admit that your denierism is based on faith. The world must be coming to an end.  Conservatives and lesbians,  gut feel over imperical evidence,  cats lie with dogs. faith? no, that's for you disciples... I can see, hear and feel all by myself... everything I've seen over the past 10 years, 20 years, has been the same all my life... I listen to the older generations who have seen it all... seen times of drought, warmer decades, colder decades... all going in cycles and its no different today... I've lived by the coast most of my life... when I go down to the beach I don't see one millimetre difference in the water levels... except for tidal variations... nothings changed in climate... the world goes through its cycles and no one fully understands how it does... and if they do i'll show you a liar.. apart from you that is...  Your head is so far up your arse. So, you expect us to ignore all the scientifically measured data around the world, because you, some random, havent "noticed" any change at whatever shithole beach you frequent "most" of the time. Hmmm, let me think. I think I'll stick with science, instead of a faith based, lesbian logic, nutter on a forum.

do you mean this scientific evidence?

http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae269/oldpom/temps.png

but you don't like this one... it proves your Activist propaganda is all bullshit..

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:10am:

do you mean this scientific evidence? http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae269/oldpom/temps.png but you don't like this one... it proves your Activist propaganda is all bullshit.

Funny how you can say anything with statistics. This is an intentionally misleading plot because (1) it is plotting the first derivative rather than the raw data; (2) the axes have been skewed to reduce the size of the temperature variations and enhance the CO2 changes with no explanation provided for this choice; (3) it cherrypicks two data points at either end for no apparent reason. Also, no source is given for the plot so we cannot determine for ourselves why the chart is plotted as it is and whether these reasons were valid.

Bam wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:22am:

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:10am: do you mean this scientific evidence? http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae269/oldpom/temps.png but you don't like this one... it proves your Activist propaganda is all bullshit. Funny how you can say anything with statistics. This is an intentionally misleading plot because (1) it is plotting the first derivative rather than the raw data; (2) the axes have been skewed to reduce the size of the temperature variations and enhance the CO2 changes with no explanation provided for this choice; (3) it cherrypicks two data points at either end for no apparent reason. Also, no source is given for the plot so we cannot determine for ourselves why the chart is plotted as it is and whether these reasons were valid.

Yeah, ignoring the cherry picked data for a moment,  its one of those diagrams that is deliberatly designed to mislead the viewer. Both lines are roughly correlated. The blue "rate of change" line is almost always above zero. If plotted as straight X vs Y, it would match the black line of c02 concentrations.   But this is exactly what the deniers dont want to show, so they show the "rate of change" instead.

Its like a simple IQ test. Interpret this graph.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:51am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:30am: Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong. Goodness me, I better ensure I am ready for this when I am 122 or so....

That's right Andrei, its only about you. 

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:40am:

Bam wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:22am: True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:10am: do you mean this scientific evidence? http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae269/oldpom/temps.png but you don't like this one... it proves your Activist propaganda is all bullshit. Funny how you can say anything with statistics. This is an intentionally misleading plot because (1) it is plotting the first derivative rather than the raw data; (2) the axes have been skewed to reduce the size of the temperature variations and enhance the CO2 changes with no explanation provided for this choice; (3) it cherrypicks two data points at either end for no apparent reason. Also, no source is given for the plot so we cannot determine for ourselves why the chart is plotted as it is and whether these reasons were valid. Yeah, ignoring the cherry picked data for a moment,  its one of those diagrams that is deliberatly designed to mislead the viewer. Both lines are roughly correlated. The blue "rate of change" line is almost always above zero. If plotted as straight X vs Y, it would match the black line of c02 concentrations.   But this is exactly what the deniers dont want to show, so they show the "rate of change" instead. Its like a simple IQ test. Interpret this graph.

Funny in the other thread Greg is asserting that 104 years of temperature records isn't enough to prove anything.

Yet apparently 15 years is enough here?????

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:40am:

Bam wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:22am: True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:10am: do you mean this scientific evidence? http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae269/oldpom/temps.png but you don't like this one... it proves your Activist propaganda is all bullshit. Funny how you can say anything with statistics. This is an intentionally misleading plot because (1) it is plotting the first derivative rather than the raw data; (2) the axes have been skewed to reduce the size of the temperature variations and enhance the CO2 changes with no explanation provided for this choice; (3) it cherrypicks two data points at either end for no apparent reason. Also, no source is given for the plot so we cannot determine for ourselves why the chart is plotted as it is and whether these reasons were valid. Yeah, ignoring the cherry picked data for a moment,  its one of those diagrams that is deliberatly designed to mislead the viewer. Both lines are roughly correlated. The blue "rate of change" line is almost always above zero. If plotted as straight X vs Y, it would match the black line of c02 concentrations.   But this is exactly what the deniers dont want to show, so they show the "rate of change" instead. Its like a simple IQ test. Interpret this graph.

what absolute crap...

what did you say your IQ was?

Bam wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:22am:

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:10am: do you mean this scientific evidence? http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae269/oldpom/temps.png but you don't like this one... it proves your Activist propaganda is all bullshit. Funny how you can say anything with statistics. This is an intentionally misleading plot because (1) it is plotting the first derivative rather than the raw data; (2) the axes have been skewed to reduce the size of the temperature variations and enhance the CO2 changes with no explanation provided for this choice; (3) it cherrypicks two data points at either end for no apparent reason. Also, no source is given for the plot so we cannot determine for ourselves why the chart is plotted as it is and whether these reasons were valid.

the data is fine...

and you have to start and finish somewhere, the data points are only showing the start and finish time and is not done to mislead anything.. so I can only assume you are trying to make a point out of nothing..

you lose credibility right there..

the CO2 chart is explained to the right.. are you blind?

and the only people cherry picking data are the Activists and the Disciples who repeat it like parrots..

and lets not forget climategate.. how embarrassment...  :-[

and yes im a sceptic..

that doesn't mean im a "denier" ... another "wank word" disciples like to use to try and intimidate the sceptics..

well it wont work...

here's one of these good honest Scientist Bam and Jollys trust in

September 19, 1996: email 0843161829

Two days after the previous exchange, Gary Funkhouser reports on his attempts to obtain anything from the data that could be used to sell the message of climate change:

I really wish I could be more positive about the … material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that.… I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have—they just are what they are … I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

oh oh....  :-[

why has this thread been moved?  >:(

global warming is politically motivated and should remain on the political forum..  >:(

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:30am:

Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong. The research, by a team led by the University of NSW, says a 4-degree rise in temperature would be potentially catastrophic for agriculture in warm regions of the world, including Australia. It cracks open one of the biggest problems in climate science Forecasts in many climate models for lower temperature rises were based on assumptions that clouds might help limit temperature increases. But the team claims to have found the key to predicting cloud behaviour, and forecasts that clouds will not be nearly as helpful as thought in many models. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-planet-to-warm-by-4-degrees-by-2100-20131231-304nw.html#ixzz2pBlFCLa6

Shame you are so gullible. Its embarrasing watching people like you and worse, the scientist you follow.

All this research means is that the models that are currently closest to reality, to mother nature, to emprical data, are now wrong which only leaves the greater failing models left.

How pathethic are you lot.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:48am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:30am: Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong. The research, by a team led by the University of NSW, says a 4-degree rise in temperature would be potentially catastrophic for agriculture in warm regions of the world, including Australia. It cracks open one of the biggest problems in climate science Forecasts in many climate models for lower temperature rises were based on assumptions that clouds might help limit temperature increases. But the team claims to have found the key to predicting cloud behaviour, and forecasts that clouds will not be nearly as helpful as thought in many models. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-planet-to-warm-by-4-degrees-by-2100-20131231-304nw.html#ixzz2pBlFCLa6 Shame you are so gullible. Its embarrasing watching people like you and worse, the scientist you follow. All this research means is that the models that are currently closest to reality, to mother nature, to emprical data, are now wrong which only leaves the greater failing models left. How pathethic are you lot.

Do you think childish names calling adds weight to your argument?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:54am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 10:48am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:30am: Temperatures are on course to rise at least 4 degrees by the end of the century, according to research that finds earlier climate models projecting smaller increases are likely to be wrong. The research, by a team led by the University of NSW, says a 4-degree rise in temperature would be potentially catastrophic for agriculture in warm regions of the world, including Australia. It cracks open one of the biggest problems in climate science Forecasts in many climate models for lower temperature rises were based on assumptions that clouds might help limit temperature increases. But the team claims to have found the key to predicting cloud behaviour, and forecasts that clouds will not be nearly as helpful as thought in many models. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-planet-to-warm-by-4-degrees-by-2100-20131231-304nw.html#ixzz2pBlFCLa6 Shame you are so gullible. Its embarrasing watching people like you and worse, the scientist you follow. All this research means is that the models that are currently closest to reality, to mother nature, to emprical data, are now wrong which only leaves the greater failing models left. How pathethic are you lot. Do you think childish names calling adds weight to your argument?

Dont care.

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:06am:

Bam wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:22am: True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:10am: do you mean this scientific evidence? http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae269/oldpom/temps.png but you don't like this one... it proves your Activist propaganda is all bullshit. Funny how you can say anything with statistics. This is an intentionally misleading plot because (1) it is plotting the first derivative rather than the raw data; (2) the axes have been skewed to reduce the size of the temperature variations and enhance the CO2 changes with no explanation provided for this choice; (3) it cherrypicks two data points at either end for no apparent reason. Also, no source is given for the plot so we cannot determine for ourselves why the chart is plotted as it is and whether these reasons were valid. the data is fine...

The way it is presented to the user is not. You have not provided any explanation for the use of the first derivative. I doubt you even know what that means.


Quote:

and you have to start and finish somewhere, the data points are only showing the start and finish time and is not done to mislead anything..

Bullshit. Why put them in at all? Most charts do NOT do this. Why highlight isolated data points with such prominence if not to mislead? If you want to find the start and end points, use your eyes.

In any case, it is invalid to highlight the start and end points of highly variable data, especially when a trend line is plotted. Why not highlight the end points of the trend line instead?


Quote:

so I can only assume you are trying to make a point out of nothing.. you lose credibility right there..

I'm not losing any credibility here, you are. You have refused to discuss the points raised but instead make up strawman arguments. You have refuted nothing. It is a bogus chart because it uses questionable methodology without explanation. It is also deceptive by its use of skewed axes. You are totally unable to refute these points so you resort to name calling, strawman arguments and shooting the messenger. How predictable.


Quote:

the CO2 chart is explained to the right.. are you blind?

That's not an EXPLANATION. That's just an axis on a chart. Where's the explanation for using the first derivative? You don't even know the difference between a label and an explanation.

I can use the exact same methodology to "prove" that the wealthy pay hardly any more tax than people on low incomes.


Quote:

and the only people cherry picking data are the Activists and the Disciples who repeat it like parrots..

And you resort to lies and smear. If you think that Bolt and his ilk have never cherrypicked data to make a point on climate change, you're ignorant.


Quote:

and lets not forget climategate.. how embarrassment...  :-[/quote] A manufactured scandal. [quote]and yes im a sceptic..

Call yourself what you like. It doesn't make it true.

If you were a sceptic as you falsely claim, you would also be sceptical of this chart, rather than swallowing it whole without the slightest critique. You probably still cannot find any problems with this chart.


Quote:

that doesn't mean im a "denier" ... another "wank word" disciples like to use to try and intimidate the sceptics..

And yet you use "wank words" yourself - "Activists" ... "Disciples" ... "climategate" ...


Quote:

well it wont work...

Because you are a denier. I say this because you refuse to consider competing evidence on its merits but instead take one dogmatic viewpoint and adhere to it despite evidence to the contrary. If you were actually a sceptic, you would at least be able to demonstrate some objectivity.

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:25am:

why has this thread been moved?  >:( global warming is politically motivated and should remain on the political forum..  >:(

Deniers have made a basic science, political, to their eternal shame.

The weather is political now is it???

Right you are....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 12:23pm:

The weather is political now is it??? Right you are....

Yes It's political.  Deniers reject global warming on ideological grounds and couldn't care less about the science or the consequences.  Its much like you Andrei when you say, what do I care I wont be around when it matters.  And you have kids (talk about revolting)   

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:25am:

why has this thread been moved?  >:( global warming is politically motivated and should remain on the political forum..  >:(

Our knowledge of global warming is founded in science. Denial is a tactic of business. Politicians are tools employed by business in that pursuit.

The connection to politicians is tenuous enough that topics on climate science probably don't belong in "Politicians Suck". I'd say "Environment" would be more appropriate, but "General" will do.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 1:02pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 12:23pm: The weather is political now is it??? Right you are.... Yes It's political.  Deniers reject global warming on ideological grounds and couldn't care less about the science or the consequences.  Its much like you Andrei when you say, what do I care I wont be around when it matters.  And you have kids (talk about revolting)

Ball's chat!  I 'deny' global warming based on what I see and on the knowledge that the 'science' has been weighted by the funding of those who seek the worst case scenario that fits the pre-designed concept - that we are all headed for disaster.

Well - we are - but we will suffer disaster from over-population first...

As for the current long-running cool summer here being 'subjective' - tell that to my tomatoes that are struggling to ripen when they are normally ripe in December.

I tend to trust birds, animals and plants far more than I trust scientists... must be the Lakota blood.....

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 3:39pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:02pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 12:23pm: The weather is political now is it??? Right you are.... Yes It's political.  Deniers reject global warming on ideological grounds and couldn't care less about the science or the consequences.  Its much like you Andrei when you say, what do I care I wont be around when it matters.  And you have kids (talk about revolting)    Ball's chat!  I 'deny' global warming based on what I see and on the knowledge that the 'science' has been weighted by the funding of those who seek the worst case scenario that fits the pre-designed concept - that we are all headed for disaster. Well - we are - but we will suffer disaster from over-population first... As for the current long-running cool summer here being 'subjective' - tell that to my tomatoes that are struggling to ripen when they are normally ripe in December. I tend to trust birds, animals and plants far more than I trust scientists... must be the Lakota blood.....

I dont think even you are so stupid as to believe the boggy reasoning of this reply.  Here's the Grappler with little if any training in climate science telling us that his assessment based on what he sees is more reliable then what the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (who have spent years and all their days studying the subject) are telling us after extensive studies over 4 decades.  Oh and this is the clincher that the Grappler is lying.  He tells us that he knows that the scientists are telling us a furphy for the funding.  Oh and lets not forget that this 20th century man with the appearance of a modicum of education gets his information from the birds, animals and plants (perhaps he studies their entrails).  I tell you what Grappler, I don't expect an honest answer from you here but between you and the lamp post why don't you reflect on (i) how much time you honestly spend per day observing the birds, animals and plants to ascertain the truth about climate change;(ii) what you look for in the habits and behavior of each; (iii) what methodology you use (iv) over how long a period you have done this (v) and whether any of this is really going to give you a reliable basis for rejecting what an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on.  You see why its obvious you're a liar.  No rational honest adult would reject the scientific method for your stupid childish approach for ascertaining the truth about something on which the survival of humanity and the earth so depends.       

Any sane rational person would reject the scientific approach - when it shows nothing of value.

Trains could no go faster than 30 mph since the forward movement would suck all the air out and the people on board would suffocate.

I have zero obligation to accept what a biased scientific body presents - there have been enough errors in the past and present to arrive at the conclusion that animals is smarter than humans....

No 'lie' involved... I simply do not accept what a deliberately falsely weighted scientific group that says 'Yay' says without questioning it.

Now you can rant and rave and name-call all you like... KID... but when you can come back to me and offer me a solution to the pollution from China, India and other 'emerging industrial giants' - instead of endless rhetoric about the theory of climate change - then you may have a point for discussion.

Offering no solution while whining and name-calling those who disagree will avail you - and the human race in the event there is a problem - nothing.

I get my scientific support from Louie 'The Leech' Lechevsky down at the Chicago cattle yards... he knows all about it... he watches the cattle prices.... climate change means thinner cattle.....thinner cattle means lower prices...

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:04pm:

Any sane rational person would reject the scientific approach - when it shows nothing of value. Trains could no go faster than 30 mph since the forward movement would suck all the air out and the people on board would suffocate. I have zero obligation to accept what a biased scientific body presents - there have been enough errors in the past and present to arrive at the conclusion that animals is smarter than humans.... No 'lie' involved... I simply do not accept what a deliberately falsely weighted scientific group that says 'Yay' says without questioning it. Now you can rant and rave and name-call all you like... KID... but when you can come back to me and offer me a solution to the pollution from China, India and other 'emerging industrial giants' - instead of endless rhetoric about the theory of climate change - then you may have a point for discussion. Offering no solution while whining and name-calling those who disagree will avail you - and the human race in the event there is a problem - nothing. I get my scientific support from Louie 'The Leech' Lechevsky down at the Chicago cattle yards... he knows all about it... he watches the cattle prices.... climate change means thinner cattle.....thinner cattle means lower prices...

Yes, you reason like an idiot and lie like a trooper.  Go talk to the animals and the plants.  No doubt they cant pick your deception - but we can. 

;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 3:25pm:

Our knowledge of global warming is founded in science.

:D :D :


Gissa the run down on the science will ya, sport.
Dot points, please.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 12:23pm:

The weather is political now is it??? Right you are....

Climate!

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 3:25pm: Our knowledge of global warming is founded in science. :D :D : Gissa the run down on the science will ya, sport. Dot points, please.

Ice is melting!

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:43am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:37am: True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:30am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:24am: "True Blue" gets his climate change information from a graduate from womens studies. This has been proven. Now, this is not a dig a True Blue, because in denier circles anyone with a degree is the enemy. cods and his many aliases (progs, IB, etc) wouldnt even consider asking an educated person. Anyone with an education or even remotely clever is an elitist revoluitionary coming to eat babies. They know better. I would believe a good investigative journalist any day than one of your eco loon Activists... So, you believe a graduate of womans studies vs these prestigeous institutions: Academies of science Joint national science academy statements Polish Academy of Sciences United States National Research Council Royal Society of New Zealand European Science Foundation American Chemical Society American Institute of Physics American Physical Society Australian Institute of Physics European Physical Society American Geophysical Union European Federation of Geologists Geological Society of America American Meteorological Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Royal Meteorological Society (UK) American Academy of Pediatrics American College of Preventive Medicine American Medical Association American Public Health Association Australian Medical Association World Federation of Public Health Associations World Health Organization to name but a few. I would believe in my own instincts rather than those who have to campaign (scare the government) for extra funding...

Wow, some rightie pretending resource interested investors don't play tricks  :o

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:47am:

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:43am: I would believe in my own instincts rather than those who have to campaign (scare the government) for extra funding... Instincts eh?  Do you trust your own instincts when you break your leg, or do you trust a doctor. At least you admit that your denierism is based on faith. The world must be coming to an end.  Conservatives and lesbians,  gut feel over imperical evidence,  cats lie with dogs.

Well, afterall,..  ;) black IS ACTUALLY WHITE  :D :D :)

True Blue... wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:56am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:47am: True Blue... wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:43am: I would believe in my own instincts rather than those who have to campaign (scare the government) for extra funding... Instincts eh?  Do you trust your own instincts when you break your leg, or do you trust a doctor. At least you admit that your denierism is based on faith. The world must be coming to an end.  Conservatives and lesbians,  gut feel over imperical evidence,  cats lie with dogs. faith? no, that's for you disciples... I can see, hear and feel all by myself... everything I've seen over the past 10 years, 20 years, has been the same all my life... I listen to the older generations who have seen it all... seen times of drought, warmer decades, colder decades... all going in cycles and its no different today... I've lived by the coast most of my life... when I go down to the beach I don't see one millimetre difference in the water levels... except for tidal variations... nothings changed in climate... the world goes through its cycles and no one fully understands how it does... and if they do i'll show you a liar.. apart from you that is...

Dinosaurs came from where?  :-?

Talkin 'bout the birds and bees (and the flowers and the trees)......so many birds have just exited and left us (no longer exist) and now, the bees....?

But, reading all this with interest (and a few other topics of much the same topic) and trying to keep an open mind and opinion of it all....I am thus, more confused than ever,  :-? wanting to know 'the truth' which can seem to be manipulated by either side of the debate with different graphs of whether GM is a concern or not.

The only thing that is subject to change so far, is one's belief, in any presentation.

And I reckon (in my own down to earth opinion of course), that there is other stuff that will kill us off before climate does. After all, whom will inherit the Earth again???
The meek or the ferals?
If jellyfish survived for 650 millions years despite not having a brain, must be great news for (stupid) people.


I wonder, is there a possibility, that there is a climate exchange, rather than change? I ask this because, why am I freezing here in Melbourne, in the middle of summer?
We seem to be getting a lot of rain and even humidity, almost tropical, I think Queensland is changing over with Victoria?
I had to have a laugh, at an elderly female friend, that said recently, she can't wait until winter for a few warm days!

So our winter is dryer than what it used to be?

Hmmm.....climate exchange.
I go up to Queensland in Winter for some sun, (to avoid their monsoons of their late summer/early autumn) only to find I get stuck indoors with their heaviest downpours of rain on record etc.
I left Melbourne's winter of 21 warm sunny degrees, to go to a cold damp Queensland....go figure. It just didn't compute.

Re: The bees, what's happening there? Pollution, pesticides, electro magnetic radiation etc etc. The bee keeper that used to keep bees on our property, was finding it difficult to get many bees, and not much honey either. He goes to various different areas for his quest to find more bees and for more honey, used to give us a tub of it, and last I had heard of the bee keeper, he was concerned that the bees seemed 'stressed'. That was a good 8 or so years ago.

What else is going to kill our human population off more quickly? Over population was mentioned. Now why is it, that there are more people with asthma, diseases, and cancer is now effecting 1 in 3 people?
Yes, we are our own worst enemy....not all of us, some of us do give a shyte and plant trees, and try to be in harmony with nature.....but it all goes for nothing, when bigger corporations, the greed factor, over shadows any of our vain attempt at being kind to mother earth.

Yes dinasours have come and gone, and so too can we.
Why do we humans think we are infallible?
We seem to be lucky to be here in fact. So far.i

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:54pm:

# wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 3:25pm: Our knowledge of global warming is founded in science. ... Gissa the run down on the science will ya, sport. Dot points, please.

What makes you think I'm any better qualified in climate science than you?

If you really want to know, then I've found Skeptical Science a good source of understandable explanations. It has enough awards and commendations from reputable sources to lend it a credibility well above most other sites.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:32am:

Soren wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:54pm: # wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 3:25pm: Our knowledge of global warming is founded in science. :D :D : Gissa the run down on the science will ya, sport. Dot points, please. Ice is melting!

:D :D :D :D :D
http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/shipf_thumb.jpg

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:09am:

Soren wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:54pm: # wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 3:25pm: Our knowledge of global warming is founded in science. ... Gissa the run down on the science will ya, sport. Dot points, please. What makes you think I'm any better qualified in climate science than you? If you really want to know, then I've found Skeptical Science a good source of understandable explanations. It has enough awards and commendations from reputable sources to lend it a credibility well above most other sites.

So you are not thinking for yourself but accept what others say without actually understanding it yourself because you want to believe it.
Looks like faith to me.

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:09am:

If you really want to know, then I've found Skeptical Science a good source of understandable explanations. It has enough awards and commendations from reputable sources to lend it a credibility well above most other sites.

If anyone needs a good laugh here is the sceptical science endorsement page, http://www.skepticalscience.com/endorsements.shtml ... be warned though, make sure you're not eating weeties while you read it, you'll choke on them http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif

Global Warming Science

just like Asbestos Science, Tobacco Science, DDT Science & Fluoride Science.

big money & vested interests.............

I still don't believe in global warming as a threat, and no amount of lack of science accompanied by lambast, personal vitriol, and name-calling will change my mind.

This argument is the same as 'gay marriage' - until I was viciously assaulted for saying that I had little to no interest in it as an issue - it held little to no interest for me.

Now I oppose it on the basis that anyone who substitutes personal attack for truth and facts is an enemy of reason and of civilisation, and such a person has nothing to add that is positive to the discussion.

Bring back the kid revolutionary with his current model high school larnin'... I think I'd rather rely on those I trust than some jumped-up kid with a 'degree'.  Possession of a degree does not make you the expert on all issues - it offers you an opinion supported, if you can provide it, with some data.

That would appear to me to be one of the biggest problems with our current society - too many 'educated' fools ruining the show for everyone else.

SHOW ME THE PROOF.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:47am:

# wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:09am: If you really want to know, then I've found Skeptical Science a good source of understandable explanations. It has enough awards and commendations from reputable sources to lend it a credibility well above most other sites. If anyone needs a good laugh here is the sceptical science endorsement page, http://www.skepticalscience.com/endorsements.shtml ... be warned though, make sure you're not eating weeties while you read it, you'll choke on them http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif

as I've just said in another thread this site has already been proven fraudulent...

credible indeed...  ;D

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus'

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

;D      ;D      ;D      ;D   :D      :D      :D      :D ;)      ;)      ;)      ::)      ::)      ::)

I recall being given the guilt trip y a school kid when I said that the last reports I'd read said 50% for/50% against GW - he said 97% at that time.

He who laughs last....

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 12:08pm:

I still don't believe in global warming as a threat, and no amount of lack of science accompanied by lambast, personal vitriol, and name-calling will change my mind. This argument is the same as 'gay marriage' - until I was viciously assaulted for saying that I had little to no interest in it as an issue - it held little to no interest for me. Now I oppose it on the basis that anyone who substitutes personal attack for truth and facts is an enemy of reason and of civilisation, and such a person has nothing to add that is positive to the discussion. Bring back the kid revolutionary with his current model high school larnin'... I think I'd rather rely on those I trust than some jumped-up kid with a 'degree'.  Possession of a degree does not make you the expert on all issues - it offers you an opinion supported, if you can provide it, with some data. That would appear to me to be one of the biggest problems with our current society - too many 'educated' fools ruining the show for everyone else. SHOW ME THE PROOF.

I'm sold Grappler .... that is the truth of it. ;) ;D

True Blue... wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 12:08pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:47am: # wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:09am: If you really want to know, then I've found Skeptical Science a good source of understandable explanations. It has enough awards and commendations from reputable sources to lend it a credibility well above most other sites. If anyone needs a good laugh here is the sceptical science endorsement page, http://www.skepticalscience.com/endorsements.shtml ... be warned though, make sure you're not eating weeties while you read it, you'll choke on them http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif as I've just said in another thread this site has already been proven fraudulent... credible indeed...  ;D Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Authored by:
Quote:

Attorney James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication produced by the Heartland Institute think tank, and devoted to "sound science and free-market environmentalism," which labels the scientific consensus on climate change as "alarmist." He is also a Senior Fellow for Heartland

I'll credit a Eureka over a denialist think tank.

Soren wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:18am:

# wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:09am: Soren wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:54pm: # wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 3:25pm: Our knowledge of global warming is founded in science. ... Gissa the run down on the science will ya, sport. Dot points, please. What makes you think I'm any better qualified in climate science than you? If you really want to know, then I've found Skeptical Science a good source of understandable explanations. It has enough awards and commendations from reputable sources to lend it a credibility well above most other sites. So you are not thinking for yourself but accept what others say without actually understanding it yourself because you want to believe it. Looks like faith to me.

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:54pm:

... Gissa the run down on the science will ya, sport. Dot points, please.

Wasn't that you asking me to do your thinking for you? Instead, I gave you a source of information so you could think for yourself.

If I wasn't thinking for myself, how would I know where to find reliable information? I really wish I could do as you do and deny the evidence. It would be very comforting. I'm a responsible adult, so I can't do that.

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 1:33pm:

If I wasn't thinking for myself, how would I know where to find reliable information? I really wish I could do as you do and deny the evidence. It would be very comforting. I'm a responsible adult, so I can't do that.

You see - this is the thing.....

We ALL do our own thinking for ourselves, which is why we don't all agree, and that is the essence of humanity - that we are all different and we all arrive at a view of things from a different direction.  That way - hopefully - somewhere in that morass of views lies an answer..... but rarely - if ever - is the answer held by one view.

I know you are not guilty here, but some seek to turn another person's right to a different view based on their reading of the situation into a personal issue, to be attacked and vilified.

The person doing so today (etc) obviously hasn't read the science on that issue..... and does not understand humanity.

Perhaps he needs to enroll at Grappler U - the REAL U - and learn at the feet of the master - the self-appointed chief scientist....     ;D ;D  ;D  ;D

Clouds say what??

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 1:33pm:

. If I wasn't thinking for myself, how would I know where to find reliable information?

YOU DON'T.

Soren wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 7:19pm:

# wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 1:33pm: . If I wasn't thinking for myself, how would I know where to find reliable information? YOU DON'T.

I'm devastated! Tell me, oh wise one, where can I find enlightenment?

# wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 7:19pm: # wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 1:33pm: . If I wasn't thinking for myself, how would I know where to find reliable information? YOU DON'T. I'm devastated! Tell me, oh wise one, where can I find enlightenment?

I'm guessing it's under Soren's foreskin assuming he has one  :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:30pm:

# wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 7:48pm: Soren wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 7:19pm: # wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 1:33pm: . If I wasn't thinking for myself, how would I know where to find reliable information? YOU DON'T. I'm devastated! Tell me, oh wise one, where can I find enlightenment? I'm guessing it's under Soren's foreskin assuming he has one  :o

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OCd2sO92KZI/TPWHmUzkVfI/AAAAAAAADpc/Iwu9ntkwPR4/s1600/vlcsnap-2010-11-30-07h14m13s156.png