Is this the North Pole's climate change counterstrike? An icy piece of the Arctic is drifting deep over the United States bringing it the coldest temperatures in decades to more than half the nation. The bitter-cold weather is being produced by what is called a "polar vortex", a deep low pressure system drawing down cold air direct from the Arctic.

The whirlpool of sub-zero air is sweeping over the US central and eastern states after spearing down over the Great Lakes, causing the cancellation of 14,000 flights, chaos on the roads and even frostbite. Normally, the swirling mass of frigid air orbits over the North Pole. Something has sent the system spinning southward over Canada and the United States.

When wind-chill is included, temperatures in places such as the Midwest and Plains will feel as though they are -45C, the Weather Channel asserts. Warnings are being urgently broadcast in several states that exposed skin will freeze "within in minutes". "This winter storm will be one for the record books and we want to make sure everyone stays safe and warm until it passes," Illinois Governor Pat Quinn warned his people.

And it's not only the US that is copping an Arctic ice-lashing. Britain is taking a beating, too. Waves up to 8 meters high are slamming into Britain's southwestern coast , as lashing winds and heavy rain batter parts of the UK and coastal residents braced for another round of flooding. The monster waves were recorded at Land's End, the southwestern tip of the UK.

Icy whirlpool's wide-spread chill

As a "polar vortex" usually spins in one place over the ice, the air it has trapped gets colder and colder. This air becomes so dense that, even when expelled from its Arctic chiller, it can travel a great distance without any noticeable warming. Today is expected to be the most bone-chilling day of the snap with freezing temperatures forecast for all 48 continental US states. Yes, that includes Texas and Florida. It's the coldest Arctic outbreak since the early 1990s.

One train on the route from Detroit to Chicago has already disabled for up to nine hours after its engine froze solid. One person was killed when a private jet skidded on the ice on a runway in Aspen, Colorado. US Airline officials said de-icing fluid was freezing solid inside aircraft, fuel was pumping sluggishly, and ramp workers were having difficulty loading and unloading luggage.

Britain battens down

Britain's month-long bout of harsh weather is also taking its toll. In Aberystwyth in Wales, seafront homes, businesses and student residence halls were evacuated as high tides hit the Welsh coast. The Met Office, Britain's weather forecasting body, warned of wind gusts up to 70 mph (113 kph) and exceptionally large waves along the coasts of Wales, southwest England and Northern Ireland.

At least seven people have died in a wave of stormy weather that has battered Britain since December, including a man killed when his mobility scooter fell into a river in Oxford, southern England. The Environment Agency issued three severe flood warnings Monday - meaning there is a threat to life and property - for the county of Dorset in southwestern England, as well as more than 300 less serious flood alerts.

Polar relief

The United States' "polar vortex" is currently sitting over Hudson Bay. It is not expected to start dissipating until Thursday. "It's just a dangerous cold," said National Weather Service meteorologist Butch Dye. It hasn't been this cold for almost two decades in many parts of the country. Frostbite and hypothermia can set in within minutes. "I have seen frostbite occur through clothing," said Douglas Brunette, an emergency room doctor in Minneapolis. "It's not enough just to be covered. You need clothes made for the elements. You need to repel the wind."

The forecast is extreme: -35 Celsius in North Dakota, and -26 Celsius in Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Chicago. Wind chills - what it feels like when high winds are factored into the temperature - could drop into the -45 to -51 Celsius range. In New York City, the temperature was expected to drop sharply from about 11 Celsius to about 10 -12 Celsius overnight as the arctic air moved in.

The Indianapolis mayor upgraded the city's travel emergency level to "red," making it illegal for anyone to drive except for emergencies or seeking shelter. The last time the city issued such a travel warning was 1978.

Accounts of life with the ice

Elnur Toktombetov, a Chicago taxi driver, said that an hour into his shift, his Toyota's windows were still coated with ice on the inside. Many cities came to a virtual standstill. School was called off on Monday for the state of Minnesota. Government offices and courts in several states closed. Southern states were bracing for possible record cold temperatures, too. With two freezing nights ahead, Louisiana citrus farmers could lose any fruit they cannot pick in time.

Between a heater that barely works and the drafty windows that invite the cold air inside his home, Jeffery Davis decided he'd be better off sitting in a doughnut shop for three hours Monday until it was time to go to work in downtown Chicago. So he threw on two pairs of pants, two t-shirts, "at least three jackets," two hats, a pair of gloves, the "thickest socks you'd probably ever find" and boots, and trudged to the train stop in his South Side neighborhood that took him to within a few blocks of the library where he works.
(cont'd)

"I never remember it ever being this cold," said Davis, 51. "I'm flabbergasted." One after another, people came into the shop, some to buy coffee, others, like Davis, to just sit and wait.

Giovannni Lucero, a 29-year-old painter, said he was prepared for the storm. To keep his pipes from freezing, he'd left the faucet running and opened the kitchen and bathroom cabinet doors to let the warm air in his house reach the pipes. "We stocked up yesterday on groceries because you never know," Lucero said.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/travel/world/us-braces-for-record-deep-freeze-as-polar-vortex-pushes-temperatures-down-to-50c/story-fni0bxo3-1226796192691

Wasn't last year the hottest on record, yet the US and UK are now in the grip of such ferociously cold weather that hasn't been experienced in at least two decades? Global warming - HA!  ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

Wasn't last year the hottest on record, yet the US and UK are now in the grip of such ferociously cold weather that hasn't been experienced in at least two decades? Global warming - HA!  ;D

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 4:51pm:

. The very fact that the northern hemisphere has suffered such COLD winters for the last decade - but average annual temperatures are STILL breaking "record after record - year after year" on the top end of the scale - indicates the problem of global warming and climate change is OBVIOUSLY WORSE than it first appears

Yep...the scientists have been predicting these extreme weather events due to man made atmospheric pollution for over 100 yrs.
The change in weather patterns both cold and hot are all due to the warming of the planet and that includes a major driver of the climate..the oceans
A little information not spewed out by ignorant shock jocks and far right inbred nutbags would stand you in better stead when it comes to arguing scientific principles.
100 yrs of scientific research predicted exactly what is occurring

adelcrow wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 6:09pm:

Yep...the scientists have been predicting these extreme weather events due to man made atmospheric pollution for over 100 yrs. The change in weather patterns both cold and hot are all due to the warming of the planet and that includes a major driver of the climate..the oceans A little information not spewed out by ignorant shock jocks and far right inbred nutbags would stand you in better stead when it comes to arguing scientific principles. 100 yrs of scientific research predicted exactly what is occurring

How are the sea levels going to rise when the polar caps are absolutely frozen solid? Even the Antarctic is frozen and it's summer there. When are we going to see the evidence of this so called warming?

The severe cold, blizzards etc in UK and North America occur precisely because of AGW! Changes in circumpolar winds, in the jetstream etc means the Arctic air can escape southwards.

See the UK Met Office.

A small increase to average temperatures does NOT mean we cannot still get extreme cold weather events. Anyone that claims otherwise is (1) showing some ignorance of statistics and (2) is confusing the concepts of climate and weather.

Bam wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 6:31pm:

A small increase to average temperatures does NOT mean we cannot still get extreme cold weather events. Anyone that claims otherwise is (1) showing some ignorance of statistics and (2) is confusing the concepts of climate and weather.

And who gets to determine what a "long period" is?

How did I know it would be you teaspoon and your beloved Tele to bring this up ;)


Quote:

All of this is all wrong in ways that have all been explained before. So just a few brief observations:     Statements about climate trends must be based on, er, trends. Not individual events or occurrences. Weather is not climate, and anecdotes are not statistics.     Global warming is actually expected to increase "heavy precipitation in winter storms," and for the northern hemisphere, there is evidence that these storms are already more frequent and intense, according to the draft US National Climate Assessment.     Antarctica is a very cold place. But global warming is affecting it as predicted: Antarctica is losing ice overall, according to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, sea ice is a different matter than land-based or glacial ice. Antarctic sea ice is increasing, and moreover, the reason for this may be climate change! (For more, read here.) Finally, just one last thing. When it's winter on Earth, it's also summer on Earth...somewhere else. Thus, allow us to counter anecdotal evidence about cold weather with more anecdotal evidence: It's blazing hot in Australia, with temperatures, in some regions, set to possibly soar above 120 degrees Fahrenheit in the coming days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/cold-weather-climate-change_n_4537598.html?utm_hp_ref=climate-change

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 6:49pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 6:31pm: A small increase to average temperatures does NOT mean we cannot still get extreme cold weather events. Anyone that claims otherwise is (1) showing some ignorance of statistics and (2) is confusing the concepts of climate and weather. And who gets to determine what a "long period" is?

And who gets to determine why the current average temperature set and co2 level is the perfect one, why isn't 500ppm co2 and another couple of degrees the perfect weather, and don't tell me its because the models said so, they aren't worth a pinch of sh#t  ::)

Sparky wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 6:14pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 6:09pm: Yep...the scientists have been predicting these extreme weather events due to man made atmospheric pollution for over 100 yrs. The change in weather patterns both cold and hot are all due to the warming of the planet and that includes a major driver of the climate..the oceans A little information not spewed out by ignorant shock jocks and far right inbred nutbags would stand you in better stead when it comes to arguing scientific principles. 100 yrs of scientific research predicted exactly what is occurring How are the sea levels going to rise when the polar caps are absolutely frozen solid? Even the Antarctic is frozen and it's summer there. When are we going to see the evidence of this so called warming?

Yeh, lets just ignore that hypocritical fact of their predictions. If we ignore it, then its a win/win.

If the sea rises due to heat and ice melt.... they got it right.
If the sea doesnt rise due to ice melt, then vulnerable water (lol bugger me) that gives more ice extent and we predicted such an event, they got it right.

Just like cold, hot, rainy, dry, upside down, right side up, boil, freeze..... they got it right because they predict every single horse in the race.

Thats called selecting the field

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 6:49pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 6:31pm: A small increase to average temperatures does NOT mean we cannot still get extreme cold weather events. Anyone that claims otherwise is (1) showing some ignorance of statistics and (2) is confusing the concepts of climate and weather. And who gets to determine what a "long period" is?

Anybody except you.

muso wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 6:49pm: Bam wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 6:31pm: A small increase to average temperatures does NOT mean we cannot still get extreme cold weather events. Anyone that claims otherwise is (1) showing some ignorance of statistics and (2) is confusing the concepts of climate and weather. And who gets to determine what a "long period" is? Anybody except you.

Pathetic answer.

30 years?  Is that what you think is a "long period"?

If so, why?

If not, what arbitrary number do you subscribe to?

And this time, try to answer the question honestly (although I do realise that AGW disciples prefer lies to honesty).

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 8:13pm:

Sparky wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 6:14pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 6:09pm: Yep...the scientists have been predicting these extreme weather events due to man made atmospheric pollution for over 100 yrs. The change in weather patterns both cold and hot are all due to the warming of the planet and that includes a major driver of the climate..the oceans A little information not spewed out by ignorant shock jocks and far right inbred nutbags would stand you in better stead when it comes to arguing scientific principles. 100 yrs of scientific research predicted exactly what is occurring How are the sea levels going to rise when the polar caps are absolutely frozen solid? Even the Antarctic is frozen and it's summer there. When are we going to see the evidence of this so called warming? Yeh, lets just ignore that hypocritical fact of their predictions. If we ignore it, then its a win/win. If the sea rises due to heat and ice melt.... they got it right. If the sea doesnt rise due to ice melt, then vulnerable water (lol bugger me) that gives more ice extent and we predicted such an event, they got it right. Just like cold, hot, rainy, dry, upside down, right side up, boil, freeze..... they got it right because they predict every single horse in the race. Thats called selecting the field

You've played this game before....  ;)

I think the warming jig is up  ;D

Is this the North Pole's climate change counterstrike? An icy piece of the Arctic is drifting deep over the United States bringing it the coldest temperatures in decades to more than half the nation





Do you mean to say they had colder temperatures decades ago, well before any global warming ;D ;D

http://youtu.be/2K2s2EjsXJI


Quote:

While it seems counter-intuitive, the research argues that plunging temperatures could come from changes in the jet stream caused by climate change. Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer A Francis has released a number of papers about changes in the jet stream brought about by warming Arctic temperatures. Her conclusions suggest that warming Arctic air caused by greenhouse gas emissions has caused changing to the jet stream that is pushing colder Arctic air further south, causing temperatures to plunge from the High Plains to the Deep South. The jet stream shift has sent frigid air across the central part of the country, and deeper into the south than normal. Alaska, meanwhile, is being hit by unusually warm conditions and California is facing record-breaking drought, Francis said. She said the strange weather is becoming more likely because of climate change. “We can’t say that these are extremes are because of climate change but we can say that this kind of pattern is becoming more likely because of climate change,” Francis said. NASA analysis has also drawn a link between the jet stream, climate change and colder temperatures. A 2010 NASA analysis tied colder temperatures over the course of 2009 to an event similar to the wavy jet stream, called “Arctic oscillation” — a see-sawing pressure system over the North Pole. That oscillation pushed cold air to teh south. The NASA analysis also said that despite cold snaps, and other weather changes being a part of naturally occurring patterns, they are still in line with a “globally warming world.”

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 5:40am:

http://youtu.be/2K2s2EjsXJI Quote: While it seems counter-intuitive, the research argues that plunging temperatures could come from changes in the jet stream caused by climate change. Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer A Francis has released a number of papers about changes in the jet stream brought about by warming Arctic temperatures. Her conclusions suggest that warming Arctic air caused by greenhouse gas emissions has caused changing to the jet stream that is pushing colder Arctic air further south, causing temperatures to plunge from the High Plains to the Deep South. The jet stream shift has sent frigid air across the central part of the country, and deeper into the south than normal. Alaska, meanwhile, is being hit by unusually warm conditions and California is facing record-breaking drought, Francis said. She said the strange weather is becoming more likely because of climate change. “We can’t say that these are extremes are because of climate change but we can say that this kind of pattern is becoming more likely because of climate change,” Francis said. NASA analysis has also drawn a link between the jet stream, climate change and colder temperatures. A 2010 NASA analysis tied colder temperatures over the course of 2009 to an event similar to the wavy jet stream, called “Arctic oscillation” — a see-sawing pressure system over the North Pole. That oscillation pushed cold air to teh south. The NASA analysis also said that despite cold snaps, and other weather changes being a part of naturally occurring patterns, they are still in line with a “globally warming world.”

Very good on knowing the details of what happened after the event.... :)

You'll find these cold extremes have been predicted in the scientific literature. Watch the video.

To be fair, its been a long time since ive seen the Thames flood like this.

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/arctic-blast-linked-global-warming-20140106


Quote:

Can extreme weather events like this weekend's historic outbreak of cold Arctic air across the U.S. be caused by the warming of the Arctic? Though it seems counterintuitive – global warming bringing about extreme cold – the answer may be yes, according to scientists like Weather Underground's Dr. Jeff Masters and Dr. Jennifer Francis, a research professor at Rutgers University's Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences. The cause is believed to lie in the jet stream, the fast-flowing river of air high above the Earth that marks the boundary between cold, polar air to the North and warm tropical air to the South. As the jet stream shifts position back and forth over North America throughout the year, it plays a major role in the weather patterns and temperatures we experience in the U.S. In recent years, the movement of the jet stream has changed significantly, bringing "weather whiplash" with strange, out-of-season weather events more frequently than in the recent past. Francis has been a leading voice in recent years for research that points to rapid changes in the Arctic – including a dramatic decline over the past 30 years in Arctic sea ice extent, which exposes more of the Arctic Ocean to the sun's rays in the summer – as the likely culprit behind the jet stream's increasingly odd behavior.

http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/climatechange/2013/590x411_10081829_screen-shot-2013-10-08-at-2.00.11-pm.png

Including 2013, the linear trend in November ice extent is –4.9 percent per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 mean, or a loss of about 20,700 square miles per year. (Courtesy National Snow and Ice Data Center)



Quote:

The cause is thought to be what scientists call Arctic amplification, the tendency of the polar region to experience more warming (and at a faster pace) than the rest of the Northern hemisphere. This heightened sensitivity is due to the Arctic's snow cover and sea ice, and the feedback loops triggered by their presence (or absence). "As sea ice retreats, sunshine that would have been reflected back to space by the bright ice is instead absorbed by the ocean, which heats up, melting even more ice," Francis explained in a March 2012 article at Yale360. "Extra heat entering the vast expanses of open water that were once covered in ice is released back to the atmosphere in the fall," she adds. "All that extra heat being deposited into the atmosphere cannot help but affect the weather, both locally and on a large scale." Why? Because the Arctic is warming so quickly – about twice as fast as as the rest of the planet – the difference in temperature between the Arctic and the lower latitudes is narrowing. That temperature difference drives the jet stream; when it shrinks, the jet stream slows and undulates more. It also moves more north-south than east-west (its usual flow), and can get stuck in patterns that last for much longer than they did even a few years ago. And when that happens, the waves of the jet stream slow down and become larger and more sluggish. When they increase in size thanks to Arctic amplification, they move eastward more slowly, allowing the weather associated with them to stick around longer. Still, not all climate scientists accept the linkages between long-term global warming, thinning Arctic sea ice, and weather events like this weekend's. The science around attributing weather events at lower latitudes to what happens in the Arctic is still very new, and scientists are far from consensus on whether such a link exists. In August, a study published by Elizabeth Barnes of Colorado State University called into question Francis' research that links Arctic amplification with the recent changes in the jet stream. And In September, the National Academy of Sciences convened a workshop that drew dozens of climate scientists from around the world to discuss this topic. But the possibility between what's occurring in the Arctic and what happens when extreme weather hits will undoubtedly continue to receive an increasing amount of attention. For more, hear Dr. Jeff Masters and Jennifer Francis talk more about how Arctic warming is changing weather in the U.S. in this video:

http://youtu.be/u7EHvfaY8Zs

Man made global warming is real because? ( insert any answer here, doesn't matter because they are all correct )  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 7:29am:

Man made global warming is real because? ( insert any answer here, doesn't matter because they are all correct )  ;D

Once again, an outstanding contribution, roadkill.

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 7:12am:

You'll find these cold extremes have been predicted in the scientific literature. Watch the video.

I think you'll find they have only been predicting that in hindsight  ;)

You deniers are acting like Fox News reporters.

Here, have some sense knocked into you...


http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/jon-stewart-drops-fbomb-on-the-daily-show-when-attacking-fox-news-reporters-on-global-warming-mockery/story-e6frfmq9-1226796880552

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 7:17am:

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/arctic-blast-linked-global-warming-20140106 Quote: Can extreme weather events like this weekend's historic outbreak of cold Arctic air across the U.S. be caused by the warming of the Arctic? Though it seems counterintuitive – global warming bringing about extreme cold – the answer may be yes, according to scientists like Weather Underground's Dr. Jeff Masters and Dr. Jennifer Francis, a research professor at Rutgers University's Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences. The cause is believed to lie in the jet stream, the fast-flowing river of air high above the Earth that marks the boundary between cold, polar air to the North and warm tropical air to the South. As the jet stream shifts position back and forth over North America throughout the year, it plays a major role in the weather patterns and temperatures we experience in the U.S. In recent years, the movement of the jet stream has changed significantly, bringing "weather whiplash" with strange, out-of-season weather events more frequently than in the recent past. Francis has been a leading voice in recent years for research that points to rapid changes in the Arctic – including a dramatic decline over the past 30 years in Arctic sea ice extent, which exposes more of the Arctic Ocean to the sun's rays in the summer – as the likely culprit behind the jet stream's increasingly odd behavior. http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/climatechange/2013/590x411_10081829_screen-shot-2013-10-08-at-2.00.11-pm.png Including 2013, the linear trend in November ice extent is –4.9 percent per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 mean, or a loss of about 20,700 square miles per year. (Courtesy National Snow and Ice Data Center) [quote]The cause is thought to be what scientists call Arctic amplification, the tendency of the polar region to experience more warming (and at a faster pace) than the rest of the Northern hemisphere. This heightened sensitivity is due to the Arctic's snow cover and sea ice, and the feedback loops triggered by their presence (or absence). "As sea ice retreats, sunshine that would have been reflected back to space by the bright ice is instead absorbed by the ocean, which heats up, melting even more ice," Francis explained in a March 2012 article at Yale360. "Extra heat entering the vast expanses of open water that were once covered in ice is released back to the atmosphere in the fall," she adds. "All that extra heat being deposited into the atmosphere cannot help but affect the weather, both locally and on a large scale." Why? Because the Arctic is warming so quickly – about twice as fast as as the rest of the planet – the difference in temperature between the Arctic and the lower latitudes is narrowing. That temperature difference drives the jet stream; when it shrinks, the jet stream slows and undulates more. It also moves more north-south than east-west (its usual flow), and can get stuck in patterns that last for much longer than they did even a few years ago. And when that happens, the waves of the jet stream slow down and become larger and more sluggish. When they increase in size thanks to Arctic amplification, they move eastward more slowly, allowing the weather associated with them to stick around longer. Still, not all climate scientists accept the linkages between long-term global warming, thinning Arctic sea ice, and weather events like this weekend's. The science around attributing weather events at lower latitudes to what happens in the Arctic is still very new, and scientists are far from consensus on whether such a link exists. In August, a study published by Elizabeth Barnes of Colorado State University called into question Francis' research that links Arctic amplification with the recent changes in the jet stream. And In September, the National Academy of Sciences convened a workshop that drew dozens of climate scientists from around the world to discuss this topic. But the possibility between what's occurring in the Arctic and what happens when extreme weather hits will undoubtedly continue to receive an increasing amount of attention. For more, hear Dr. Jeff Masters and Jennifer Francis talk more about how Arctic warming is changing weather in the U.S. in this video:

http://youtu.be/u7EHvfaY8Zs[/quote]
So what you are saying (unwittlingly it seems) is that there were no vortex breaks before 1970 or 1950 or 1900 even.

If there were, then the link to AGW is a crock of shite. Something else causes it. Its the sun stupid

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 7:12am:

You'll find these cold extremes have been predicted in the scientific literature. Watch the video.

Like progs said you've got the field covered you just have to pick from one of the many, many different scenarios and cram that square peg in that round hole.When that stuffs up you go back to the actual literature and point at all the qualifiers like could, might, may... The truth is you change your position more often than your underpants. There's an old magicians trick where they ask you to pick a number between 1 and 5 and then they tell you to look under some object and there is your number.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 10:07pm:

I think the warming jig is up  ;D

No problems.

They'll just change their hypothesis to AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change).

They have an answer for everything.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:32am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 10:07pm: I think the warming jig is up  ;D No problems. They'll just change their hypothesis to AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change). They have an answer for everything.

Yeah, it's called winter. It's just that this year the cold is being shifted around by a volatile jet stream. Our climate system is still warming because it obeys the laws of physics.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:32am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 10:07pm: I think the warming jig is up  ;D No problems. They'll just change their hypothesis to AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change). They have an answer for everything.

See:  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1389081386/29#29

Faith can be a very powerful thing.

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 3:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:32am: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 10:07pm: I think the warming jig is up  ;D No problems. They'll just change their hypothesis to AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change). They have an answer for everything. Yeah, it's called winter. It's just that this year the cold is being shifted around by a volatile jet stream. Our climate system is still warming because it obeys the laws of physics.

Our climate system is still warming? ... well I'll be buggered!, you do realise though that the climate is always either warming or cooling don't you?, there is no steady state, Earth doesn't have a climate control switch where its a perfect 21 degrees every day you know, and as the current warming is well within natural variation and below all the "climate models" expectations I think you may have prematurely got you panties in a bunch for nothing  ;D

MOTR wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 3:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:32am: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 10:07pm: I think the warming jig is up  ;D No problems. They'll just change their hypothesis to AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change). They have an answer for everything. Yeah, it's called winter. It's just that this year the cold is being shifted around by a volatile jet stream.

Start thinking up an excuse for next year.

winter is coming

Quote:

Leroy @Leroy_Lynch Follow Freeze gripping US may be tied to shrinking Arctic sea ice caused by manmade #climatechange

…

Quote:

8:20 AM - 8 Jan 2014 US polar vortex may be example of global warming Climate Central: Deep freeze gripping America may be tied to shrinking Arctic sea ice caused by manmade climate change The Guardian @guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/07/us-polar-vortex-global-warming

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/01/06/what-is-this-polar-vortex-that-is-freezing-the-u-s/

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 7:47pm:

Quote: Leroy @Leroy_Lynch Follow Freeze gripping US may be tied to shrinking Arctic sea ice caused by manmade #climatechange … [quote]8:20 AM - 8 Jan 2014 US polar vortex may be example of global warming Climate Central: Deep freeze gripping America may be tied to shrinking Arctic sea ice caused by manmade climate change The Guardian @guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/07/us-polar-vortex-global-warming

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/01/06/what-is-this-polar-vortex-that-is-freezing-the-u-s/[/quote]

...may be...might be...FFS 

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 7:33am:

MOTR wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 7:12am: You'll find these cold extremes have been predicted in the scientific literature. Watch the video. I think you'll find they have only been predicting that in hindsight  ;)

Well, no.

Arctic ice melt sets stage for severe winters, scientists say

June 5, 2012
By Anne Ju

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2012/06/arctic-ice-melt-sets-stage-cold-weather



Quote:

Severe winter weather outbreaks are more likely due in part to the seemingly far-off problem of melting sea ice in the Arctic. The dramatic melt-off of Arctic sea ice due to climate change is hitting closer to home than millions of Americans might think. That's because melting Arctic sea ice can trigger a domino effect leading to increased odds of severe winter weather outbreaks in the Northern Hemisphere's middle latitudes -- think the "Snowmageddon" storm that hamstrung Washington, D.C., during February 2010. Cornell's Charles H. Greene, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences, and Bruce C. Monger, senior research associate in the same department, detail this phenomenon in a paper published in the June issue of the journal Oceanography. "Everyone thinks of Arctic climate change as this remote phenomenon that has little effect on our everyday lives," Greene said. "But what goes on in the Arctic remotely forces our weather patterns here." A warmer Earth increases the melting of sea ice during summer, exposing more dark ocean water to incoming sunlight. This causes increased absorption of solar radiation and excess summertime heating of the ocean -- further accelerating the ice melt. The excess heat is released to the atmosphere, especially during the autumn, decreasing the temperature and atmospheric pressure gradients between the Arctic and middle latitudes.

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/files/2013/04/arctic.jpg

Negative Arctic Oscillation conditions are associated with higher pressure in the Arctic and a weakened polar vortex (yellow arrows). A weakened jet stream (black arrows) is characterized by larger-amplitude meanders in its trajectory and a reduction in the wave speed of those meanders.


Quote:

A diminished latitudinal pressure gradient is linked to a weakening of the winds associated with the polar vortex and jet stream. Since the polar vortex normally retains the cold Arctic air masses up above the Arctic Circle, its weakening allows the cold air to invade lower latitudes. The recent observations present a new twist to the Arctic Oscillation (AO) -- a natural pattern of climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Before humans began warming the planet, the Arctic's climate system naturally oscillated between conditions favorable and those unfavorable for invasions of cold Arctic air. Greene says, "What's happening now is that we are changing the climate system, especially in the Arctic, and that's increasing the odds for the negative AO conditions that favor cold air invasions and severe winter weather outbreaks. "It's something to think about given our recent history," Greene continued. This past winter, an extended cold snap descended on central and eastern Europe in mid-January, with temperatures approaching -22 Fahrenheit and snowdrifts reaching rooftops. And, of course, there were the record snowstorms fresh in the memories of residents from several eastern U.S. cities, such as Washington, New York and Philadelphia, as well as many other parts of the Eastern Seaboard during the previous two years. But wait -- Greene and Monger's paper is being published just after one of the warmest winters in the eastern U.S. on record. How does that relate? "It's a great demonstration of the complexities of our climate system and how they influence our regional weather patterns," Greene said. In any particular region, many factors can have an influence, including the El Nino/La Nina cycle. This winter, La Nina in the Pacific shifted undulations in the jet stream so that while many parts of the Northern Hemisphere were hit by the severe winter weather patterns expected during a bout of negative AO conditions, much of the eastern United States basked in the warm tropical air that swung north with the jet stream. "It turns out that while the eastern U.S. missed out on the cold and snow this winter, and experienced record-breaking warmth during March, many other parts of the Northern Hemisphere were not so fortunate," Greene said. Europe and Alaska experienced record-breaking winter storms, and the global average temperature during March 2012 was cooler than any other March since 1999. "A lot of times people say, 'Wait a second, which is it going to be -- more snow or more warming?' Well, it depends on a lot of factors, and I guess this was a really good winter demonstrating that," Greene said. "What we can expect, however, is the Arctic wildcard stacking the deck in favor of more severe winter outbreaks in the future."

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 6:09pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:32am: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 10:07pm: I think the warming jig is up  ;D No problems. They'll just change their hypothesis to AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change). They have an answer for everything. Yeah, it's called winter. It's just that this year the cold is being shifted around by a volatile jet stream.  Start thinking up an excuse for next year.

Well done, greggery, now you are tacitly denying there will be any consequences from the ice melt in the Arctic. Or maybe you are denying the ice melt itself.

Shock as it's cold and wet here in winter.
That's never happened before you know.

MOTR wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 6:49am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 6:09pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:32am: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 10:07pm: I think the warming jig is up  ;D No problems. They'll just change their hypothesis to AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change). They have an answer for everything. Yeah, it's called winter. It's just that this year the cold is being shifted around by a volatile jet stream.  Start thinking up an excuse for next year. Well done, greggery, now you are tacitly denying there will be any consequences from the ice melt in the Arctic. Or maybe you are denying the ice melt itself.

I'm denying the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 8:10pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 7:47pm: Quote: Leroy @Leroy_Lynch Follow Freeze gripping US may be tied to shrinking Arctic sea ice caused by manmade #climatechange … [quote]8:20 AM - 8 Jan 2014 US polar vortex may be example of global warming Climate Central: Deep freeze gripping America may be tied to shrinking Arctic sea ice caused by manmade climate change The Guardian @guardian http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/07/us-polar-vortex-global-warming http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/01/06/what-is-this-polar-vortex-that-is-freezing-the-u-s/

...may be...might be...for goodness sake 
[/quote]

Meteorologists study a very, very “noisy” system. But given the US and especially the UK has been having the very cold winters for several years in a row, given that the jetstream IS behaving oddly lends weight to their conclusions.

The language of scientists, especially meteorologists, is cautious and precise.

It is only little conservative dweebs sitting in front of their computer, no knowledge of climate studies etc can say definitively “The globe is NOT warming” when the trend of average global temperatures is upwards. To “prove” their faith, these dweebs turn to all sorts of cranks, like Andrew Bolt, or posit causes like “It’s the sun, d’uh!” without explaining how the sun is causing AGW.

Read something sensible on the subject:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/07/us-polar-vortex-global-warming

As the world warms the amount of water vapor in the increases. Because of this some glaciers in optimum locations are growing while nearly all glaciers are in retreat.

This retreat includes the Himalayan Snowfields. These feed seven of the worlds major rivers including the Ganges, the Yellow River and the Mekong—if they disappear a quarter of the world will starve. Maybe this is why the Chinese government is implementing all sorts of emissions reductions and renewable energy sources—the decline in the flow is probably measurable by now. Campbell Newman is having budgetary problems partly because coal royalties are way down. Seeing a pattern? I wouldn’t invest in any thermal coal project!

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:57am:

MOTR wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 6:49am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 6:09pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 3:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:32am: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 10:07pm: I think the warming jig is up  ;D No problems. They'll just change their hypothesis to AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change). They have an answer for everything. Yeah, it's called winter. It's just that this year the cold is being shifted around by a volatile jet stream.  Start thinking up an excuse for next year. Well done, greggery, now you are tacitly denying there will be any consequences from the ice melt in the Arctic. Or maybe you are denying the ice melt itself. I'm denying the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.

Yes you are.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:57am:

... I'm denying the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis

If there's no such evidence, then bodies of reputable scientists will have said so. Just link to them, greggerypeccary.

You aren't pretending to be better qualified than all those scientists, are you, greggerypeccary? What are your qualifications, greggerypeccary?

MOTR wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 6:29am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 7:33am: MOTR wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 7:12am: You'll find these cold extremes have been predicted in the scientific literature. Watch the video. I think you'll find they have only been predicting that in hindsight  ;) Well, no. Arctic ice melt sets stage for severe winters, scientists say June 5, 2012 By Anne Ju http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2012/06/arctic-ice-melt-sets-stage-cold-weather Quote: Severe winter weather outbreaks are more likely due in part to the seemingly far-off problem of melting sea ice in the Arctic. The dramatic melt-off of Arctic sea ice due to climate change is hitting closer to home than millions of Americans might think. That's because melting Arctic sea ice can trigger a domino effect leading to increased odds of severe winter weather outbreaks in the Northern Hemisphere's middle latitudes -- think the "Snowmageddon" storm that hamstrung Washington, D.C., during February 2010. Cornell's Charles H. Greene, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences, and Bruce C. Monger, senior research associate in the same department, detail this phenomenon in a paper published in the June issue of the journal Oceanography. "Everyone thinks of Arctic climate change as this remote phenomenon that has little effect on our everyday lives," Greene said. "But what goes on in the Arctic remotely forces our weather patterns here." A warmer Earth increases the melting of sea ice during summer, exposing more dark ocean water to incoming sunlight. This causes increased absorption of solar radiation and excess summertime heating of the ocean -- further accelerating the ice melt. The excess heat is released to the atmosphere, especially during the autumn, decreasing the temperature and atmospheric pressure gradients between the Arctic and middle latitudes. http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/files/2013/04/arctic.jpg Negative Arctic Oscillation conditions are associated with higher pressure in the Arctic and a weakened polar vortex (yellow arrows). A weakened jet stream (black arrows) is characterized by larger-amplitude meanders in its trajectory and a reduction in the wave speed of those meanders. [quote]A diminished latitudinal pressure gradient is linked to a weakening of the winds associated with the polar vortex and jet stream. Since the polar vortex normally retains the cold Arctic air masses up above the Arctic Circle, its weakening allows the cold air to invade lower latitudes. The recent observations present a new twist to the Arctic Oscillation (AO) -- a natural pattern of climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Before humans began warming the planet, the Arctic's climate system naturally oscillated between conditions favorable and those unfavorable for invasions of cold Arctic air. Greene says, "What's happening now is that we are changing the climate system, especially in the Arctic, and that's increasing the odds for the negative AO conditions that favor cold air invasions and severe winter weather outbreaks. "It's something to think about given our recent history," Greene continued. This past winter, an extended cold snap descended on central and eastern Europe in mid-January, with temperatures approaching -22 Fahrenheit and snowdrifts reaching rooftops. And, of course, there were the record snowstorms fresh in the memories of residents from several eastern U.S. cities, such as Washington, New York and Philadelphia, as well as many other parts of the Eastern Seaboard during the previous two years. But wait -- Greene and Monger's paper is being published just after one of the warmest winters in the eastern U.S. on record. How does that relate? "It's a great demonstration of the complexities of our climate system and how they influence our regional weather patterns," Greene said. In any particular region, many factors can have an influence, including the El Nino/La Nina cycle. This winter, La Nina in the Pacific shifted undulations in the jet stream so that while many parts of the Northern Hemisphere were hit by the severe winter weather patterns expected during a bout of negative AO conditions, much of the eastern United States basked in the warm tropical air that swung north with the jet stream. "It turns out that while the eastern U.S. missed out on the cold and snow this winter, and experienced record-breaking warmth during March, many other parts of the Northern Hemisphere were not so fortunate," Greene said. Europe and Alaska experienced record-breaking winter storms, and the global average temperature during March 2012 was cooler than any other March since 1999. "A lot of times people say, 'Wait a second, which is it going to be -- more snow or more warming?' Well, it depends on a lot of factors, and I guess this was a really good winter demonstrating that," Greene said. "What we can expect, however, is the Arctic wildcard stacking the deck in favor of more severe winter outbreaks in the future."

[/quote]



Thankyou for proving my point.  ;)

# wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 9:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:57am: ... I'm denying the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis If there's no such evidence, then bodies of reputable scientists will have said so.

Really?

Can you substantiate that claim?

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2014/01/gohomearcticyouredrunk.png

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/01/05/go-home-arctic-youre-drunk/

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 10:28am:

# wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 9:30am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:57am: ... I'm denying the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis If there's no such evidence, then bodies of reputable scientists will have said so. Really? Can you substantiate that claim?

Don’t know much, do you? Scientists are ALWAYS trying to prove each other! Try reading up on the scientific method.

This news from NASA 1999

'The flip-flop from cold to warm happens every few years, according to Shindell. But over the past 30 years, he said, the system has tended more toward strong winds and warming. And even during colder periods, temperatures have risen by several degrees. "Since the cycle is a natural phenomena," said Shindell, scientists have to ask, "is the increased warming part of the natural oscillation, or are humans causing the warming?" /

' "If we include the stratosphere in the climate model, we're finding that the increasing greenhouse gases lead to an enhanced polar vortex," said Shindell. It is the strengthened polar vortex that drives winds all the way from the stratosphere to the lower atmosphere, creating stronger westerlies and increasing the warm periods of the Arctic Oscillation, said Shindell. A realistic representation of the stratosphere, including the polar vortex, is typically not included in climate models. These results suggest that the impact of global warming may therefore be incompletely represented by most current models, with this altered circulation effect making for greater regional warming during wintertime.

Shindell's model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. "In our model, we're seeing a very large signal of global warming and it's not a naturally occurring thing. It's most likely linked to greenhouse gases," he said. '

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990602/

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 10:55am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:28am: # wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 9:30am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:57am: ... I'm denying the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis If there's no such evidence, then bodies of reputable scientists will have said so. Really? Can you substantiate that claim? Don’t know much, do you? Scientists are ALWAYS trying to prove each other! Try reading up on the scientific method.

I'll take that as a 'no' from you.

What about you, #, anything yet?

from wiki-

'2002–2003 was an unusually cold winter in the Northern and Eastern USA.
2010–2011, persistent bitter cold in the entire eastern half of the USA from December onward, with few or no mid-winter warm-ups, and with cool conditions continuing into spring. La Niña and negative Arctic oscillation were strong factors. Heavy and persistent precipitation contributed to almost constant snow cover in the Northeastern US which finally receded in early May.'

So papers warning of cooling in winter from 2012 and 2013 are certainly projections based on hindcasting.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 10:55am:

Don’t know much, do you? Scientists are ALWAYS trying to prove each other! Try reading up on the scientific method.

Actually they try to DISPROVE each other in the Scientific method. In the Pseudo-Scientific Method on the other hand......

lee wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 11:24am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:55am: Don’t know much, do you? Scientists are ALWAYS trying to prove each other! Try reading up on the scientific method. Actually they try to DISPROVE each other in the Scientific method. In the Pseudo-Scientific Method on the other hand......

Throw in the phrase null hypothesis and youVe got yourself a party!  :o

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 6:56am:

Shock as it's cold and wet here in winter. That's never happened before you know.

Its the pr guy who cant post links yet  ;D

# wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 9:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:57am: ... I'm denying the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis If there's no such evidence, then bodies of reputable scientists will have said so. Just link to them, greggerypeccary. You aren't pretending to be better qualified than all those scientists, are you, greggerypeccary? What are your qualifications, greggerypeccary?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 10:28am:

... Really? Can you substantiate that claim?

Is it a "claim" or is it an opinion?

Isn't testing hypotheses part of scientific method? If a hypothesis is based on no "credible, reliable evidence", as you say, then why would you expect all bodies of reputable scientists to keep silent? Are you subscribing to lunatic conspiracy theories?

# wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 3:06pm:

# wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 9:30am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:57am: ... I'm denying the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis If there's no such evidence, then bodies of reputable scientists will have said so. Just link to them, greggerypeccary. You aren't pretending to be better qualified than all those scientists, are you, greggerypeccary? What are your qualifications, greggerypeccary? greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:28am: ... Really? Can you substantiate that claim? Is it a "claim" or is it an opinion? Isn't testing hypotheses part of scientific method? If a hypothesis is based on no "credible, reliable evidence", as you say, then why would you expect all bodies of reputable scientists to keep silent? Are you subscribing to lunatic conspiracy theories?

Your answer of 'no' has been accepted.

Thank you.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 3:10pm:

# wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 3:06pm: # wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 9:30am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:57am: ... I'm denying the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis If there's no such evidence, then bodies of reputable scientists will have said so. Just link to them, greggerypeccary. You aren't pretending to be better qualified than all those scientists, are you, greggerypeccary? What are your qualifications, greggerypeccary? greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:28am: ... Really? Can you substantiate that claim? Is it a "claim" or is it an opinion? Isn't testing hypotheses part of scientific method? If a hypothesis is based on no "credible, reliable evidence", as you say, then why would you expect all bodies of reputable scientists to keep silent? Are you subscribing to lunatic conspiracy theories? Your answer of 'no' has been accepted. ...

Nice try, but it's yet another of your lies, greggerypeccary. Just another of your attempts to distract.

In your own words, you deny "the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis". Does any body of reputable scientists agree with you?

Given that the scientists report 95 to 100% confidence that global warming is Anthropogenic, what do you think you see that they are missing? Are you pretending to be better qualified, smarter or wiser than all those scientists?  What are your qualifications, greggerypeccary?

Are you saying that the vast majority of the best qualified are collaborating in some grand conspiracy? Are you saying that every body of reputable scientists is colluding with them?

These are simple questions, greggerypeccary. Surely, given your certainty that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", you can give simple, honest answers.

For those who have a brain, the cold snap in US/UK explained:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017168491

# wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:

Surely, given your certainty that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", ...

Absolutely certain.

Otherwise you would have presented some by now.

Check mate.

# wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:

These are simple questions, greggerypeccary. Surely, given your certainty that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", you can give simple, honest answers.

You know the one that really causes me to laugh every time?

- when they say something like - but water is the most important greenhouse gas - have they taken that into account?

It's a bit like sitting on the dentist chair and saying. When you drill my teeth, it hurts. Have you taken that into account?

No anasthetic for you, Bubba. 

I was reviewing the plans for a major gas project today.  Now that the government is scrapping the carbon tax, this Big Oil company wouldn't be interested in accounting for Greenhouse gases. Right?  Wrong. It's part of their policy.

Not only that, but the plans take into account the effects of climate change over the next 50 years at least.

We're talking about something that is universally accepted by professionals planning for major projects.

muso wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:13pm:

We're talking about something that is universally begrudgingly accepted by professionals planning for major projects in order to appease their shareholders.

Fixed.

muso and # wiped out in a matter of minutes.

My work here is done.

:)

The Thames is actually getting a little too close to my house for my liking now...

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:26pm:

The Thames is actually getting a little too close to my house for my liking now...

Not good    :(

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/flood-warnings-remain-place-river-6490045

Meanwhile:

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/red-alert-fire-health-warnings-for-perth-ahead-of-44c-scorcher/story-fnhocxo3-1226799001330

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:02pm:

For those who have a brain, the cold snap in US/UK explained: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017168491

Nice explanation of "wavieness".

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:18pm:

muso wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:13pm: We're talking about something that is universally begrudgingly accepted by professionals planning for major projects in order to appease their shareholders. Fixed.

Incorrect. This is confidential information, not available to shareholders.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:31pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:26pm: The Thames is actually getting a little too close to my house for my liking now... Not good    :( http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/flood-warnings-remain-place-river-6490045 Meanwhile: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/red-alert-fire-health-warnings-for-perth-ahead-of-44c-scorcher/story-fnhocxo3-1226799001330

The set of pillars to the left are where the Thames is supposed to be....

Between the pillars believe it or not is a nice little park, which is completely out of sight now.

---

And even more worringly - this is my street which I took last night.....

---

# wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:

... greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:57am: ... I'm denying the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis ... In your own words, you deny "the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis". Does any body of reputable scientists agree with you? Given that the scientists report 95 to 100% confidence that global warming is Anthropogenic, what do you think you see that they are missing? Are you pretending to be better qualified, smarter or wiser than all those scientists?  What are your qualifications, greggerypeccary? Are you saying that the vast majority of the best qualified are collaborating in some grand conspiracy? Are you saying that every body of reputable scientists is colluding with them? These are simple questions, greggerypeccary. Surely, given your certainty that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", you can give simple, honest answers.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:04pm:

# wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 8:35pm: Surely, given your certainty that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", ... Absolutely certain.

A fool, is certain; an ignorant fool, absolutely so, as the graffito went.


greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:04pm:

Otherwise you would have presented some by now. ...

You give me too much credit. Actually, no; you're lying - again.

Do I pretend to understand the science? Haven't I consistently relied on the consensus among the best qualified?

You say that you are "Absolutely certain" that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", yet you present no rational basis for that certainty. If there's no suitable evidence, then how do you explain the consensus?

muso wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:18pm: muso wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:13pm: We're talking about something that is universally begrudgingly accepted by professionals planning for major projects in order to appease their shareholders. Fixed. Incorrect. This is confidential information, not available to shareholders.

Oh dear    ::)

# wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 9:01am:

# wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 8:35pm: ... greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:57am: ... I'm denying the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis ... In your own words, you deny "the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis". Does any body of reputable scientists agree with you? Given that the scientists report 95 to 100% confidence that global warming is Anthropogenic, what do you think you see that they are missing? Are you pretending to be better qualified, smarter or wiser than all those scientists?  What are your qualifications, greggerypeccary? Are you saying that the vast majority of the best qualified are collaborating in some grand conspiracy? Are you saying that every body of reputable scientists is colluding with them? These are simple questions, greggerypeccary. Surely, given your certainty that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", you can give simple, honest answers. greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:04pm: # wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 8:35pm: Surely, given your certainty that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", ... Absolutely certain. A fool, is certain; an ignorant fool, absolutely so, as the graffito went. greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:04pm: Otherwise you would have presented some by now. ... You give me too much credit. Actually, no; you're lying - again. Do I pretend to understand the science? Haven't I consistently relied on the consensus among the best qualified? You say that you are "Absolutely certain" that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", yet you present no rational basis for that certainty. If there's no suitable evidence, then how do you explain the consensus?

My point proven: you've failed, once again, to present any credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.

Not hard to see what's going on here.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 9:08am:

# wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 9:01am: # wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 8:35pm: ... greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:57am: ... I'm denying the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis ... In your own words, you deny "the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis". Does any body of reputable scientists agree with you? Given that the scientists report 95 to 100% confidence that global warming is Anthropogenic, what do you think you see that they are missing? Are you pretending to be better qualified, smarter or wiser than all those scientists?  What are your qualifications, greggerypeccary? Are you saying that the vast majority of the best qualified are collaborating in some grand conspiracy? Are you saying that every body of reputable scientists is colluding with them? These are simple questions, greggerypeccary. Surely, given your certainty that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", you can give simple, honest answers. greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:04pm: # wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 8:35pm: Surely, given your certainty that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", ... Absolutely certain. A fool, is certain; an ignorant fool, absolutely so, as the graffito went. greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:04pm: Otherwise you would have presented some by now. ... You give me too much credit. Actually, no; you're lying - again. Do I pretend to understand the science? Haven't I consistently relied on the consensus among the best qualified? You say that you are "Absolutely certain" that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", yet you present no rational basis for that certainty. If there's no suitable evidence, then how do you explain the consensus? My point proven: you've failed, once again, to present any credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.

Which I'm no more qualified to do than you are to interpret climate science.


greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 9:08am:

Not hard to see what's going on here.

Indeed; greggerypeccary is lying again (a question or demand can be a lie, greggerypeccary, just ask your parents). Another distraction.

# wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 10:46am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 9:08am: # wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 9:01am: # wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 8:35pm: ... greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 7:57am: ... I'm denying the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis ... In your own words, you deny "the existence of credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis". Does any body of reputable scientists agree with you? Given that the scientists report 95 to 100% confidence that global warming is Anthropogenic, what do you think you see that they are missing? Are you pretending to be better qualified, smarter or wiser than all those scientists?  What are your qualifications, greggerypeccary? Are you saying that the vast majority of the best qualified are collaborating in some grand conspiracy? Are you saying that every body of reputable scientists is colluding with them? These are simple questions, greggerypeccary. Surely, given your certainty that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", you can give simple, honest answers. greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:04pm: # wrote on Jan 9th, 2014 at 8:35pm: Surely, given your certainty that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", ... Absolutely certain. A fool, is certain; an ignorant fool, absolutely so, as the graffito went. greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:04pm: Otherwise you would have presented some by now. ... You give me too much credit. Actually, no; you're lying - again. Do I pretend to understand the science? Haven't I consistently relied on the consensus among the best qualified? You say that you are "Absolutely certain" that there is no "credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis", yet you present no rational basis for that certainty. If there's no suitable evidence, then how do you explain the consensus? My point proven: you've failed, once again, to present any credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. Which I'm no more qualified to do than you are to interpret climate science.

Finally.

There is no credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.

Took us a while, but we got there.

Kids should not be buggerised for stockmarket gain!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 11:37am:

Kids should not be buggerised. for stockmarket gain!

Not sure why you needed to include the last three words of that sentence    :-/

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 10:52am:

... There is no credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. ...

The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise, it seems, and they're supported by every body of reputable scientists on the planet.

You see, greggerypeccary, asking the question of one who isn't qualified to answer proves nothing except your dishonesty. Your demand for 100% certainty, however, does prove that you know even less than I. Your absolute certainty gives further evidence of your ignorance.


# wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:28pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 5:14pm: # wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 3:38pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:21pm: # wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 12:59pm: What are your qualifications, such that you can judge that they don't have the data for that level of confidence? I'm not a gullible fool. There's no evidence to support that assertion. That's pretty rich coming from someone who actually believes that AGW is a scientific fact. ... When did I ever say anything of the sort? I accept the judgement of the vast majority of the best qualified. Judgement on which no organisation of reputable scientists disagrees. Does that mean that I believe it's " a scientific fact"? That's a product of a Conservative's binary mindset. It will probably be difficult for you to grasp, but I don't see the world in binaries (black/white; true/false; good/evil). Mine is a world of probabilities; nuance. You're uncomfortable with the 95-100% certainty that global warming is anthropogenic. You demand 100%. You need the binary. I'm quite comfortable with the probability. For me, 95-100% is not an unbearable level of uncertainty, as it evidently is for you ...

# wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 12:15pm:

You see, greggerypeccary, asking the question of one who isn't qualified to answer proves nothing except your dishonesty.

Ah, no: it proves that there is no credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.

But we'd already established that, so not sure why you felt the need to go over it again.

# wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 12:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 10:52am: ... There is no credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise, it seems, and they're supported by every body of reputable scientists on the planet. You see, greggerypeccary, asking the question of one who isn't qualified to answer proves nothing except your dishonesty. Your demand for 100% certainty, however, does prove that you know even less than I. Your absolute certainty gives further evidence of your ignorance. # wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 5:14pm: # wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 3:38pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:21pm: # wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 12:59pm: What are your qualifications, such that you can judge that they don't have the data for that level of confidence? I'm not a gullible fool. There's no evidence to support that assertion. That's pretty rich coming from someone who actually believes that AGW is a scientific fact. ... When did I ever say anything of the sort? I accept the judgement of the vast majority of the best qualified. Judgement on which no organisation of reputable scientists disagrees. Does that mean that I believe it's " a scientific fact"? That's a product of a Conservative's binary mindset. It will probably be difficult for you to grasp, but I don't see the world in binaries (black/white; true/false; good/evil). Mine is a world of probabilities; nuance. You're uncomfortable with the 95-100% certainty that global warming is anthropogenic. You demand 100%. You need the binary. I'm quite comfortable with the probability. For me, 95-100% is not an unbearable level of uncertainty, as it evidently is for you ...

If only the "qualified" are entitled to comment  or have an opinion on such matters because on your reasoning others incapable of understanding and you yourself fall into that category then, in your own opinion, as far as science goes you don't know shy it from caviar. 

namnugenot wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 1:58pm:

If only the "qualified" are entitled to comment  or have an opinion on such matters because on your reasoning others incapable of understanding and you yourself fall into that category then, in your own opinion, as far as science goes you don't know shy it from caviar.

As evinced in the majority of his posts.

His belief in AGW is based purely on faith and consensus.

Unfortunately, for him, neither are part of the scientific method.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 1:33pm:

Ah, no: it proves that there is no credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW heliocentric hypothesis theory.

Fixed. I'm sure you won't mind denying that the Earth orbits around the Sun (not the exact centre of the sun). After all, it's another hypothesis theory that we can demonstrate with roughly similar certainty.

It's only 99% certain!  That's in the same range as AGW (95-99%).

Let's add a few more:

Smoking cigarettes increases the risk of fatal lung cancer.
Dioxins are poisonous.
As an average (say) 90kg man, if you eat 2.4kg of sugar as a single dose within say 15 minutes, you will die. (would you risk that?) *(Actually, see the footnote)

Through the use of radioactive isotopes, we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, we are 99 percent certain that carbon dioxide traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

What brings it down to "95-99%",  is short term natural variation.

* By the way, if you are 90kg and would be happy to consume 2.4kg of sugar, then your chance of dying as a result of that is only 50%.  Would you do it knowing that? What if you were offered $1 million. Would you do it now? a 50% chance of collecting your winnings is much better that a 1-5 % chance isn't it?   What if we increased it to the LD95 concentration - around 4.8kg ? No?

Why not? It's not 100% certain that you will die. There is still a 5% chance that you will survive. And of course, we all know about the worldwide conspiracy of toxicologists. They are scientists after all. Maybe it's more than a 5% chance.

- and then you can find studies that the average Australian consumes 41kg of sugar every year.  At least some of them must eat 2.4kg in a single hit (and survive).

In truth it's all sugary-toxicist propaganda. Sugar provides energy. What would happen if we had zero blood sugar? We'd die, wouldn't we?

- and sugar is all natural. It's nonsense to say that it's dangerous.

Greg's weak spot is the cloud debate! Then Andrei comes along and pretends he has the gravitas to not have to supply sources!

Well, apart from all the other weak spots  8-)

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 6:27pm:

Through the use of radioactive isotopes, we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it.

You're assuming that radioactive isotopes are infallible.

Using your "logic", I can safely say that through the use of Bill Clinton's evidence, we are more than 99% sure that he never had sexual relations with that woman.

Seriously, do you actually believe the crap that you type in this forum?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:04pm:

muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 6:27pm: Through the use of radioactive isotopes, we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. You're assuming that radioactive isotopes are infallible. Using your "logic", I can safely say that through the use of Bill Clinton's evidence, we are more than 99% sure that he never had sexual relations with that woman. Seriously, do you believe the crap that you type in this forum?

So are you saying that 99% means infallible? Can you clarify that a bit?

Finally, Greggy doesn't like questions along the lines of, "How do you measure a complex system!"

This would lead to questions about the disintegration of system which Greggy cannot allow as he reckons the status quo can't be improved even tho that goes against the whole principle of manufacturing and thus the world we all live in, planet accountants included!

Keep it dark say all the crims of this world.... Infantacide and paedophilia all refer to the same thing: the lie cannot live and thus revolution becomes a word!

Tom Hanks was on Dave Letterman the other day saying there was only one theme!! ...

:o

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:04pm: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 6:27pm: Through the use of radioactive isotopes, we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. You're assuming that radioactive isotopes are infallible. Using your "logic", I can safely say that through the use of Bill Clinton's evidence, we are more than 99% sure that he never had sexual relations with that woman. Seriously, do you believe the crap that you type in this forum? So are you saying that 99% means infallible? Can you clarify that a bit?

Your comprehension skills aren't that good either.

Now you're confusing the method with the results.

You're assuming that your method is infallible.

I'm not talking about the results.

So, do you honestly believe this crap that you type, or are you just trolling?

I'm hoping for the latter, but I'm a little worried that you actually are that gullible.

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:04pm: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 6:27pm: Through the use of radioactive isotopes, we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. You're assuming that radioactive isotopes are infallible. Using your "logic", I can safely say that through the use of Bill Clinton's evidence, we are more than 99% sure that he never had sexual relations with that woman. Seriously, do you believe the crap that you type in this forum? So are you saying that 99% means infallible? Can you clarify that a bit?

Greggy won't entertain systems of measurement as it means improvement of said systems becomes an issue and he can't admit improvement of anything can be realised 8-)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:14pm:

muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:04pm: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 6:27pm: Through the use of radioactive isotopes, we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. You're assuming that radioactive isotopes are infallible. Using your "logic", I can safely say that through the use of Bill Clinton's evidence, we are more than 99% sure that he never had sexual relations with that woman. Seriously, do you believe the crap that you type in this forum? So are you saying that 99% means infallible? Can you clarify that a bit? Your comprehension skills aren't that good either. Now you're confusing the method with the results. You're assuming that your method is infallible. I'm not talking about the results. So, do you honestly believe this crap that you type, or are you just trolling? I'm hoping for the latter, but I'm a little worried that you actually are that gullible.

You imply improvement of method is possible! That is your epitaph son!

Thanx for playing!  :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:02pm:

Greg's weak spot is the cloud debate!

When it comes to AGW, Greg doesn't have a weak spot.

Every single disciple of the Climate Church has come off second best when trying to debate me.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:17pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:02pm: Greg's weak spot is the cloud debate! When it comes to AGW, Greg doesn't have a weak spot. Every single disciple of the Climate Church has come off second best when trying to debate me. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Greggy can't face facts! Greggy hates the cloud debate!!  :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:17pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:02pm: Greg's weak spot is the cloud debate! When it comes to AGW, Greg doesn't have a weak spot. Every single disciple of the Climate Church has come off second best when trying to debate me. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Greggy can't face facts! Greggy hates the cloud debate!!  :o

Excellent comeback.  No, really.


http://who-is-erin-smith.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/shooting-fish-in-a-barrel.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:14pm:

muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:04pm: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 6:27pm: Through the use of radioactive isotopes, we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. You're assuming that radioactive isotopes are infallible. Using your "logic", I can safely say that through the use of Bill Clinton's evidence, we are more than 99% sure that he never had sexual relations with that woman. Seriously, do you believe the crap that you type in this forum? So are you saying that 99% means infallible? Can you clarify that a bit? Your comprehension skills aren't that good either. Now you're confusing the method with the results. You're assuming that your method is infallible.

How do you reconcile that with my statement that it's 99% certain.  I'll ask you again. Do you consider that >99% means infallible? - because it certainly sounds that way.

Let's dissect what I said:

Through the use of radioactive isotopes (the method), we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. 

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:14pm: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:04pm: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 6:27pm: Through the use of radioactive isotopes, we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. You're assuming that radioactive isotopes are infallible. Using your "logic", I can safely say that through the use of Bill Clinton's evidence, we are more than 99% sure that he never had sexual relations with that woman. Seriously, do you believe the crap that you type in this forum? So are you saying that 99% means infallible? Can you clarify that a bit? Your comprehension skills aren't that good either. Now you're confusing the method with the results. You're assuming that your method is infallible. How do you reconcile that with my statement that it's 99% certain.  I'll ask you again. Do you consider that 99% means infallible? - because it certainly sounds that way. Let's dissect what I said: Through the use of radioactive isotopes (the method), we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it.

How certain are you of the reliability of radioactive isotopes?

What percentage, and why?




(seriously, I can't believe someone can be this stupid)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:17pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:02pm: Greg's weak spot is the cloud debate! When it comes to AGW, Greg doesn't have a weak spot. Every single disciple of the Climate Church has come off second best when trying to debate me. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

You're a legend in you're own lunchtime, mate. When it comes to BS, nobody can out BS you!

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:14pm: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:04pm: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 6:27pm: Through the use of radioactive isotopes, we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. You're assuming that radioactive isotopes are infallible. Using your "logic", I can safely say that through the use of Bill Clinton's evidence, we are more than 99% sure that he never had sexual relations with that woman. Seriously, do you believe the crap that you type in this forum? So are you saying that 99% means infallible? Can you clarify that a bit? Your comprehension skills aren't that good either. Now you're confusing the method with the results. You're assuming that your method is infallible. How do you reconcile that with my statement that it's 99% certain.  I'll ask you again. Do you consider that 99% means infallible? - because it certainly sounds that way. Let's dissect what I said: Through the use of radioactive isotopes (the method), we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it.

Greggy is entertaining that the world around us never relied on no system for measurement: the captains of the world were simply magically born with money and  ;D lol I dunno what he's on about seriously!

Society has an arrogance problem hence 9-11: war is conducted in the economic sphere and the chiefs don't talk but point!

We are not gods like Greggy ya see  :D

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:27pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:17pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:02pm: Greg's weak spot is the cloud debate! When it comes to AGW, Greg doesn't have a weak spot. Every single disciple of the Climate Church has come off second best when trying to debate me. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. You're a legend in you're own lunchtime, mate. When it comes to BS, nobody can out BS you!

White flag accepted.

At least I've made you stop and think, and realise that radioactive isotopes might not actually be infallible.

This is good.

We're making progress.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:26pm:

muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:14pm: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:04pm: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 6:27pm: Through the use of radioactive isotopes, we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. You're assuming that radioactive isotopes are infallible. Using your "logic", I can safely say that through the use of Bill Clinton's evidence, we are more than 99% sure that he never had sexual relations with that woman. Seriously, do you believe the crap that you type in this forum? So are you saying that 99% means infallible? Can you clarify that a bit? Your comprehension skills aren't that good either. Now you're confusing the method with the results. You're assuming that your method is infallible. How do you reconcile that with my statement that it's 99% certain.  I'll ask you again. Do you consider that 99% means infallible? - because it certainly sounds that way. Let's dissect what I said: Through the use of radioactive isotopes (the method), we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it.  How certain are you of the reliability of radioactive isotopes? What percentage, and why? (seriously, I can't believe someone can be this stupid)

Greggy is handing out the homework  ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:26pm:

muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:14pm: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:04pm: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 6:27pm: Through the use of radioactive isotopes, we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. You're assuming that radioactive isotopes are infallible. Using your "logic", I can safely say that through the use of Bill Clinton's evidence, we are more than 99% sure that he never had sexual relations with that woman. Seriously, do you believe the crap that you type in this forum? So are you saying that 99% means infallible? Can you clarify that a bit? Your comprehension skills aren't that good either. Now you're confusing the method with the results. You're assuming that your method is infallible. How do you reconcile that with my statement that it's 99% certain.  I'll ask you again. Do you consider that 99% means infallible? - because it certainly sounds that way. Let's dissect what I said: Through the use of radioactive isotopes (the method), we are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it.  How certain are you of the reliability of radioactive isotopes? What percentage, and why?

What do you mean by the reliability of the Radioactive isotopes? Are you talking about the method, the fact that they are radioactive? Their activity or the colour of liquefied oxygen? (it's blue)

I'm sorry, but you'll have to be more specific. I don't understand Gibberish.

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:27pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:17pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:02pm: Greg's weak spot is the cloud debate! When it comes to AGW, Greg doesn't have a weak spot. Every single disciple of the Climate Church has come off second best when trying to debate me. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. You're a legend in you're own lunchtime, mate. When it comes to BS, nobody can out BS you!

Greggy hates kids: simple as  ;D

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:30pm:

I don't understand .

Nobody ever doubted that.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:

muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:17pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:02pm: Greg's weak spot is the cloud debate! When it comes to AGW, Greg doesn't have a weak spot. Every single disciple of the Climate Church has come off second best when trying to debate me. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. You're a legend in you're own lunchtime, mate. When it comes to BS, nobody can out BS you! White flag accepted. At least I've made you stop and think, and realise that radioactive isotopes might not actually be infallible. This is good. We're making progress.

Nothing is infallible, except the Pope and greggerypeccary, and I'd rate the Pope as more widely accepted as infallible. Of course, you might differ.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:

muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:17pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:02pm: Greg's weak spot is the cloud debate! When it comes to AGW, Greg doesn't have a weak spot. Every single disciple of the Climate Church has come off second best when trying to debate me. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. You're a legend in you're own lunchtime, mate. When it comes to BS, nobody can out BS you! White flag accepted. At least I've made you stop and think, and realise that radioactive isotopes might not actually be infallible. This is good. We're making progress.

Creationists don't believe in progress! They believe in a heavenly govern.... Wait, they don't even believe in that  :D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:31pm:

muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:30pm: I don't understand . Nobody ever doubted that.

Wonderful. Thanks for that admission that you think you're losing. I asked you to clarify your question and you ignored it and went straight for the personal insult.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:29pm: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:17pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:02pm: Greg's weak spot is the cloud debate! When it comes to AGW, Greg doesn't have a weak spot. Every single disciple of the Climate Church has come off second best when trying to debate me. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. You're a legend in you're own lunchtime, mate. When it comes to BS, nobody can out BS you! White flag accepted. At least I've made you stop and think, and realise that radioactive isotopes might not actually be infallible. This is good. We're making progress. Creationists don't believe in progress! They believe in a heavenly govern.... Wait, they don't even believe in that  :D

Well, you can discuss that with them at your next meeting.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:34pm:

Well, you can discuss that with them at your next meeting.

Oi. Enough of the soft targets. I asked you to clarify your question.

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:31pm: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 7:30pm: I don't understand . Nobody ever doubted that. Wonderful. Thanks for that admission that you think you're losing.

Hey, no problem at all.

I freely admit to the fact that I'm losing the battle to make you realise that everything you write on this subject is based on  blind faith and naivety.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Hey, no problem at all. I freely admit to the fact that I'm losing the battle to make you realise that everything you write on this subject is based on  blind faith and naivety.

I have faith in my ability to apply the scientific method if that's what you mean.

I don't know about naivety.  Most would consider me cynical.

Clarify your question and stop dodging.

The only question i have is: why is greggy jealous of the unborn?

:o

Do i get banned for that we all wonder  ::)

# wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 12:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 10:52am: ... There is no credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise, it seems, and they're supported by every body of reputable scientists on the planet. You see, greggerypeccary, asking the question of one who isn't qualified to answer proves nothing except your dishonesty. Your demand for 100% certainty, however, does prove that you know even less than I. Your absolute certainty gives further evidence of your ignorance. # wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 5:14pm: # wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 3:38pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:21pm: # wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 12:59pm: What are your qualifications, such that you can judge that they don't have the data for that level of confidence? I'm not a gullible fool. There's no evidence to support that assertion. That's pretty rich coming from someone who actually believes that AGW is a scientific fact. ... When did I ever say anything of the sort? I accept the judgement of the vast majority of the best qualified. Judgement on which no organisation of reputable scientists disagrees. Does that mean that I believe it's " a scientific fact"? That's a product of a Conservative's binary mindset. It will probably be difficult for you to grasp, but I don't see the world in binaries (black/white; true/false; good/evil). Mine is a world of probabilities; nuance. You're uncomfortable with the 95-100% certainty that global warming is anthropogenic. You demand 100%. You need the binary. I'm quite comfortable with the probability. For me, 95-100% is not an unbearable level of uncertainty, as it evidently is for you ...

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 1:33pm:

# wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 12:15pm: You see, greggerypeccary, asking the question of one who isn't qualified to answer proves nothing except your dishonesty. Ah, no: it proves that there is no credible, reliable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. ...

It proves nothing, unless you believe that what I don't know can't be so. If you believe that, then the corollary is that all that can be so, I must know. The term for that is omniscience.

Omniscience is characteristic of diety. You're saying that you believe I'm a god. Not a gig I'd normally take on, but OK. Bring on the offerings, lest I smite thee.

Apart from deifying me, greggerypeccary is fond of couching acceptance of the consensus hypothesis in religious terms. It seems he has something of an obsession with things religious. So what has greggerypeccary revealed about himself in terms of religion?

With pathological liars like greggerypeccary, truth lies less in what they say than in what they evade. On Christianity, greggerypeccary was quick to deny. A Judaic reference met with stony silence. From that I infer that greggerypeccary is Jewish, but probably below Bar Mitzvah age (13 years). He later said "Never been to a religious service of any kind by any religion in my life." Highly unlikely, but ties in with extreme youth (never a marriage ceremony, never a funeral). It also evinces psychosis (belief that the assertion is credible demonstrating loss of contact with reality).

Yet again, what greggerypeccary says reveals less than what he evades.

In the spirit of full disclosure (not to mention total irrelevance): I was born Methodist (long before they became part of the Uniting Church) after dabbling in Church of England and taking a brief look at Judaism, by the time I left High School I'd come to the conclusion that the whole God thing is a Furphy.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 1:58pm:

# wrote on Jan 12th, 2014 at 12:15pm: ... You see, greggerypeccary, asking the question of one who isn't qualified to answer proves nothing ... If only the "qualified" are entitled to comment  or have an opinion on such matters because on your reasoning others incapable of understanding and you yourself fall into that category then, in your own opinion, as far as science goes you don't know shy it from caviar.

Did anyone say "only the "qualified" are entitled to comment"? Is greggerypeccary bullying me to answer a question to which he has no rational basis for believing that I have an answer decent? Is greggerypeccary misrepresenting my ignorance as validating his assertion honest?

# wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:

... greggerypeccary is fond of couching acceptance of the consensus hypothesis in religious terms. It seems he has something of an obsession with things religious.

Or could it be that the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Cult is nothing more than a faith-based religion?


http://www.infowars.com/images/15church_climate.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 4:05pm:

# wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 3:32pm: ... greggerypeccary is fond of couching acceptance of the consensus hypothesis in religious terms. It seems he has something of an obsession with things religious. Or could it be that the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Cult is nothing more than a faith-based religion? http://www.infowars.com/images/15church_climate.jpg

Have any of the congregation published in peer reviewed scientific journals

I cant seem to find the names Gore, Winfrey, Obama etc in the climate science literature.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 4:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:05pm: # wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 3:32pm: ... greggerypeccary is fond of couching acceptance of the consensus hypothesis in religious terms. It seems he has something of an obsession with things religious. Or could it be that the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Cult is nothing more than a faith-based religion? http://www.infowars.com/images/15church_climate.jpg Have any of the congregation published in peer reviewed scientific journals I cant seem to find the names Gore, Winfrey, Obama etc in the climate science literature.

It's a faith-based religion.

Why on earth would the AGW disciples be interested in peer reviewed scientific journals?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 4:20pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:05pm: # wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 3:32pm: ... greggerypeccary is fond of couching acceptance of the consensus hypothesis in religious terms. It seems he has something of an obsession with things religious. Or could it be that the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Cult is nothing more than a faith-based religion? http://www.infowars.com/images/15church_climate.jpg Have any of the congregation published in peer reviewed scientific journals I cant seem to find the names Gore, Winfrey, Obama etc in the climate science literature. It's a faith-based religion. Why on earth would the AGW disciples be interested in peer reviewed scientific journals?

...and what do the peer reviewed scientific journals conclude about AGW and climate change?

Are you sure you want to engage on this simple scientific fact?

EVERYBODY knows what happened the last time you publically tried to defend your AGW denialist cult religion.

very embarrassing....

maybe quit before it gets too ugly in the public realm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 4:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:20pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:05pm: # wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 3:32pm: ... greggerypeccary is fond of couching acceptance of the consensus hypothesis in religious terms. It seems he has something of an obsession with things religious. Or could it be that the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Cult is nothing more than a faith-based religion? http://www.infowars.com/images/15church_climate.jpg Have any of the congregation published in peer reviewed scientific journals I cant seem to find the names Gore, Winfrey, Obama etc in the climate science literature. It's a faith-based religion. Why on earth would the AGW disciples be interested in peer reviewed scientific journals? ...and what do the peer reviewed scientific journals conclude about AGW and climate change?

And what does the Bible conclude about God?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 4:20pm:

It's a faith-based religion. Why on earth would the AGW disciples be interested in peer reviewed scientific journals?

Well if your denialism is a faith-based religion, you won't listen to logical argument. Why bother?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 2:25am:

The only question i have is: why is greggy jealous of the unborn? :o Do i get banned for that we all wonder  ::)

If you want to be banned, you just have to wish very hard.

muso wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:20pm: It's a faith-based religion. Why on earth would the AGW disciples be interested in peer reviewed scientific journals? Well if your denialism is a faith-based religion, you won't listen to logical argument.

It's neither denialism nor a religion.

Moreover, faith plays no part in the structuring of my views.

Three strikes: you're out!

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:23pm:

muso wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:20pm: It's a faith-based religion. Why on earth would the AGW disciples be interested in peer reviewed scientific journals? Well if your denialism is a faith-based religion, you won't listen to logical argument. It's neither denialism nor a religion. Moreover, faith plays no part in the structuring of my views. Three strikes: you're out!

Greg believes muso is out?!!?  ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 4:44am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:23pm: muso wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:20pm: It's a faith-based religion. Why on earth would the AGW disciples be interested in peer reviewed scientific journals? Well if your denialism is a faith-based religion, you won't listen to logical argument. It's neither denialism nor a religion. Moreover, faith plays no part in the structuring of my views. Three strikes: you're out! Greg believes muso is out?!!?  ;D

http://iacmusic.com/Uploads2/46139_12_27_2012_8_46_57_AM_-_15-three-strikes.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 4:05pm:

... http://www.infowars.com/images/15church_climate.jpg

When greggerypeccary has lost, he posts images or video.

# wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:

... With pathological liars like greggerypeccary, truth lies less in what they say than in what they evade. ...

Consistent with that, greggerypeccary tacitly confirms all that I wrote.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 4:20pm:

... It's a faith-based religion. ...

An assertion which greggerypeccary has never been able to substantiate.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:23pm:

... faith plays no part in the structuring of my views. ...

You've given no evidence to show that science plays any part, greggerypeccary. In fact, you've given no reason to suppose that you actually believe what you say.


greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:

... I'll check with my therapist ...

On the evidence, greggerypeccary had best not miss any sessions.

# wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 10:27am:

You've given no evidence to show that science plays any part ...

The onus is on you.

You are the one pushing the AGW hypothesis.

It's up to you to provide credible, reliable, scientific evidence.

So far, all you've offered is faith and consensus.

You'll have to try a little harder.

# wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 10:27am:

... greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:23pm: ... faith plays no part in the structuring of my views. ... You've given no evidence to show that science plays any part, greggerypeccary. In fact, you've given no reason to suppose that you actually believe what you say. ...

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

# wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 10:27am: You've given no evidence to show that science plays any part ... The onus is on you. ...

According to greggerypeccary, the onus is on me to give evidence that science plays a part in structuring the views of greggerypeccary.  ::)


greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:

... I'll check with my therapist ...

On the evidence, greggerypeccary had best avoid missing any sessions.

# wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 11:19am:

According to greggerypeccary, the onus is on me to give evidence that science plays a part in structuring the views of greggerypeccary.

No, the onus is on you to provided credible, reliable, scientific evidence to support your AGW hypothesis.

*Simple.




*(well, not so simple really - considering no such evidence exists)

# wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 10:27am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:05pm: ... http://www.infowars.com/images/15church_climate.jpg When greggerypeccary has lost, he posts images or video. # wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 3:32pm: ... With pathological liars like greggerypeccary, truth lies less in what they say than in what they evade. ... Consistent with that, greggerypeccary tacitly confirms all that I wrote. greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:20pm: ... It's a faith-based religion. ... An assertion which greggerypeccary has never been able to substantiate. greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:23pm: ... faith plays no part in the structuring of my views. ... You've given no evidence to show that science plays any part, greggerypeccary. In fact, you've given no reason to suppose that you actually believe what you say. greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 8:22pm: ... I'll check with my therapist ... On the evidence, greggerypeccary had best not miss any sessions.

Doesn't atleast andrew bolt admit he doesn't believe what he says!!!!?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 9:52am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 4:44am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:23pm: muso wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:20pm: It's a faith-based religion. Why on earth would the AGW disciples be interested in peer reviewed scientific journals? Well if your denialism is a faith-based religion, you won't listen to logical argument. It's neither denialism nor a religion. Moreover, faith plays no part in the structuring of my views. Three strikes: you're out! Greg believes muso is out?!!?  ;D http://iacmusic.com/Uploads2/46139_12_27_2012_8_46_57_AM_-_15-three-strikes.jpg

http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/southpark/vertical_video/season_17/1705/south-park-1705-taming-strange-HEALTHCARE-clip07.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 4:33pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:20pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:05pm: # wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 3:32pm: ... greggerypeccary is fond of couching acceptance of the consensus hypothesis in religious terms. It seems he has something of an obsession with things religious. Or could it be that the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Cult is nothing more than a faith-based religion? http://www.infowars.com/images/15church_climate.jpg Have any of the congregation published in peer reviewed scientific journals I cant seem to find the names Gore, Winfrey, Obama etc in the climate science literature. It's a faith-based religion. Why on earth would the AGW disciples be interested in peer reviewed scientific journals? ...and what do the peer reviewed scientific journals conclude about AGW and climate change? And what does the Bible conclude about God?

You know what they say about people who answer a question with another question?

Now, focus on the question.

...and what do the peer reviewed scientific journals conclude about AGW and climate change?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 1:29pm:

# wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 10:27am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:05pm: ... http://www.infowars.com/images/15church_climate.jpg When greggerypeccary has lost, he posts images or video. # wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 3:32pm: ... With pathological liars like greggerypeccary, truth lies less in what they say than in what they evade. ... Consistent with that, greggerypeccary tacitly confirms all that I wrote. greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:20pm: ... It's a faith-based religion. ... An assertion which greggerypeccary has never been able to substantiate. greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:23pm: ... faith plays no part in the structuring of my views. ... You've given no evidence to show that science plays any part, greggerypeccary. In fact, you've given no reason to suppose that you actually believe what you say. greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 24th, 2013 at 8:22pm: ... I'll check with my therapist ... On the evidence, greggerypeccary had best not miss any sessions. Doesn't atleast andrew bolt admit he doesn't believe what he says!!!!?

Bolt is a Murdoch paid agitator - and a very unconvincing and poor one at that!

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 3:07pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:33pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:20pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:05pm: # wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 3:32pm: ... greggerypeccary is fond of couching acceptance of the consensus hypothesis in religious terms. It seems he has something of an obsession with things religious. Or could it be that the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Cult is nothing more than a faith-based religion? http://www.infowars.com/images/15church_climate.jpg Have any of the congregation published in peer reviewed scientific journals I cant seem to find the names Gore, Winfrey, Obama etc in the climate science literature. It's a faith-based religion. Why on earth would the AGW disciples be interested in peer reviewed scientific journals? ...and what do the peer reviewed scientific journals conclude about AGW and climate change? And what does the Bible conclude about God? You know what they say about people who answer a question with another question? Now, focus on the question. ...and what do the peer reviewed scientific journals conclude about AGW and climate change?

There's not enough credible, reliable evidence to support the hypothesis.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 4:41pm:

There's not enough credible, reliable evidence to support the hypothesis.

Just on your particular planet/alternative universe. Where the rest of us live, yours is the hypothesis, and AGW is established theory backed up by overwhelming evidence.

muso wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 5:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 4:41pm: There's not enough credible, reliable evidence to support the hypothesis. Just on your particular planet.

Yes.  Mine is about 4.5 billion years old though.

Yours, only 200 or so.

# wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 11:19am:

# wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 10:27am: ... greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:23pm: ... faith plays no part in the structuring of my views. ... You've given no evidence to show that science plays any part, greggerypeccary. In fact, you've given no reason to suppose that you actually believe what you say. ... greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 10:58am: # wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 10:27am: You've given no evidence to show that science plays any part ... The onus is on you. ... According to greggerypeccary, the onus is on me to give evidence that science plays a part in structuring the views of greggerypeccary.  ::) ...

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 11:22am:

# wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 11:19am: According to greggerypeccary, the onus is on me to give evidence that science plays a part in structuring the views of greggerypeccary. No, the onus is on you to provided credible, reliable, scientific evidence ...

How so, greggerypeccary?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:

... to support your AGW hypothesis.

Link to where I said it's my hypothesis, greggerypeccary.


greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:

*Simple.

On the evidence of your behaviour, you certainly seem to be, greggerypeccary.


greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 11:22am:

*(well, not so simple really - considering no such evidence exists)

Can you substantiate your assertion that there's no credible, reliable, scientific evidence to support Anthropogenic Global Warming, greggerypeccary? If there's no such evidence, then why do the vast majority of the best qualified support the hypothesis with such a high degree of certainty? Why does not one organisation of reputable scientists fail to support the hypothesis?

You've still given no evidence to show that science plays any part in the structuring of your views, greggerypeccary.


greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:

... I'll check with my therapist ...

On the evidence to date, greggerypeccary needs all the therapy he can get.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 4:41pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 3:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:33pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:20pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:05pm: # wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 3:32pm: ... greggerypeccary is fond of couching acceptance of the consensus hypothesis in religious terms. It seems he has something of an obsession with things religious. Or could it be that the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Cult is nothing more than a faith-based religion? http://www.infowars.com/images/15church_climate.jpg Have any of the congregation published in peer reviewed scientific journals I cant seem to find the names Gore, Winfrey, Obama etc in the climate science literature. It's a faith-based religion. Why on earth would the AGW disciples be interested in peer reviewed scientific journals? ...and what do the peer reviewed scientific journals conclude about AGW and climate change? And what does the Bible conclude about God? You know what they say about people who answer a question with another question? Now, focus on the question. ...and what do the peer reviewed scientific journals conclude about AGW and climate change? There's not enough credible, reliable evidence to support the hypothesis.

How does one support that utterance we all ask?  :o

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 5:20pm:

muso wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 5:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 4:41pm: There's not enough credible, reliable evidence to support the hypothesis. Just on your particular planet. Yes.  Mine is about 4.5 billion years old though. Yours, only 200 or so.

Um, ? Did i miss some kids crying somewhere?????? :-?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 4:41pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 3:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:33pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:20pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:05pm: # wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 3:32pm: ... greggerypeccary is fond of couching acceptance of the consensus hypothesis in religious terms. It seems he has something of an obsession with things religious. Or could it be that the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Cult is nothing more than a faith-based religion? http://www.infowars.com/images/15church_climate.jpg Have any of the congregation published in peer reviewed scientific journals I cant seem to find the names Gore, Winfrey, Obama etc in the climate science literature. It's a faith-based religion. Why on earth would the AGW disciples be interested in peer reviewed scientific journals? ...and what do the peer reviewed scientific journals conclude about AGW and climate change? And what does the Bible conclude about God? You know what they say about people who answer a question with another question? Now, focus on the question. ...and what do the peer reviewed scientific journals conclude about AGW and climate change? There's not enough credible, reliable evidence to support the hypothesis.

So you are claiming that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas, and/or it is NOT a by product of fossil fuel combustion?

That's what you learnt from your extensive, unbiased, professional and rigorous appraisal of the ENTIRE peer reviewed scientific literature published on this topic?

List the top 35 articles that you stumbled across that creates so much doubt in your mind?

Unless of course you are just mouthing off political dogma and preaching from the AGW denialist temple of worship?

THat must be it - because the term "sceptic" cant be applied in your situation, can it Mr Greggy boy?

Now apologise to everyone in this thread and promise to only re-enter this debate when you are well informed, intellectually armed, and have abandoned your portfolio of Lies and propaganda from your church group meetings

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:33am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 4:41pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 14th, 2014 at 3:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:33pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:20pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:05pm: # wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 3:32pm: ... greggerypeccary is fond of couching acceptance of the consensus hypothesis in religious terms. It seems he has something of an obsession with things religious. Or could it be that the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Cult is nothing more than a faith-based religion? http://www.infowars.com/images/15church_climate.jpg Have any of the congregation published in peer reviewed scientific journals I cant seem to find the names Gore, Winfrey, Obama etc in the climate science literature. It's a faith-based religion. Why on earth would the AGW disciples be interested in peer reviewed scientific journals? ...and what do the peer reviewed scientific journals conclude about AGW and climate change? And what does the Bible conclude about God? You know what they say about people who answer a question with another question? Now, focus on the question. ...and what do the peer reviewed scientific journals conclude about AGW and climate change? There's not enough credible, reliable evidence to support the hypothesis. So you are claiming that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas, and/or it is NOT a by product of fossil fuel combustion?

No, not at all.

I'm claiming that there's not enough credible, reliable scientific evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.

No matter how many times you say it, AGW is not an "undeniable scientific fact".

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:54am:

... I'm claiming that there's not enough credible, reliable scientific evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. ...

Can you present evidence to support your claim?

muso wrote on Jan 14^th, 2014 at 5:14pm:

AGW is established theory backed up by overwhelming evidence.

They just can't explain the hiatus/pause.

'Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

[A] “Yes, but only just”.'

' Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…” '

'Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012'

'Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.” '

'Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
“…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….” '

Definitely CAGW. All this with increasing CO2. It says a lot about "committed" CO2 from the past.

'The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios. '

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

# wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 2:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2014 at 11:54am: ... I'm claiming that there's not enough credible, reliable scientific evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. ... Can you present evidence to support your claim?

Doesn't work that way. 

The onus is on you to present credible, reliable scientific evidence to support your AGW hypothesis.