This time the ugly sod's comment was 
Quote:

climate was "getting out of control".

out of control when year in, year out, temperature remains the same?  Even if you were to agree with NASA's claim (and they have a habit of being wrong) the increase on last year is 0.02 degrees.  Surely, by any estimation that has to be well within the margin of error.  it is not even measurable by most thermometers outside of scientific instruments.

And when seen in a graph of all the other years, the 'increase' is not even statistically valid.

And that stupid cow Milne claims people will die from heat stroke.  From 0.02degrees?????  they wouldn't even notice until it was a few degrees, nevermind die.


but the climate hysterics are the chicken littles of the 21st century.

idiots, all of them.

What if CC policy is one big scam, and we make the world a better place , for nothing .

Its time wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

What if CC policy is one big scam, and we make the world a better place , for nothing .

how terrible  :D :D :D :D

Its time wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

What if CC policy is one big scam, and we make the world a better place , for nothing .

But the result of the billions spent on making the world a better place has been proven to be nothing more than a piss in the ocean.
Its like sacrificing virgins in 15th century Peru to stop the eclipse, something else I'm sure you would have been on board with if you were there at the time.

John Smith wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:50pm:

Its time wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:45pm: What if CC policy is one big scam, and we make the world a better place , for nothing . how terrible  :D :D :D :D

Yes how terrible that in the year 2015 common sense for the masses is still a pipe dream.

http://mooreschool.sc.edu/UserFiles/moore/Images/News/2013/long's_logo_GetBetterTag2.png

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:50pm: Its time wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:45pm: What if CC policy is one big scam, and we make the world a better place , for nothing . how terrible  :D :D :D :D Yes how terrible that in the year 2015 common sense for the masses is still a pipe dream.

I agree, the people simply aren't ready to vote Abbott out yet  ....

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:53pm:

But the result of the billions spent on making the world a better place has been proven to be nothing more than a piss in the ocean.

the carbon tax was already having a marked effect on pollution levels, imagine if that were multiplied the world over ... slightly more than a piss in the ocean


innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:53pm:

Its like sacrificing virgins in 15th century Peru to stop the eclipse

nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion

John Smith wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:59pm:

nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion

No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:38pm:

This time the ugly sod's comment was  Quote: climate was "getting out of control". out of control when year in, year out, temperature remains the same?  Even if you were to agree with NASA's claim (and they have a habit of being wrong) the increase on last year is 0.02 degrees.  Surely, by any estimation that has to be well within the margin of error.  it is not even measurable by most thermometers outside of scientific instruments. And when seen in a graph of all the other years, the 'increase' is not even statistically valid. And that stupid cow Milne claims people will die from heat stroke.  From 0.02degrees?????  they wouldn't even notice until it was a few degrees, nevermind die. but the climate hysterics are the chicken littles of the 21st century. idiots, all of them.

Are you rounding again, longie?  .1 is also a rounding error? No?
;)

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D

politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics.

Looks like the maths are changing. 0.2 degrees in a year - up from 0.8% in 18 years.

Using Longy’s formula, a 0.2 degree rise in ten years is 2 degrees. In a hundred years, it’s 20 degrees.

Change the maths ASAP, Longy. A rise like that would spell the end of human life - even while temperatures remain the same.

John Smith wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:22pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics.

Not according to longie.  He met a few who weren't and based on this sample he determined that 90% don't believe in CC.  Longie has engineering level statistics skills.  You can trust him. 

John Smith wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:22pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics.

Yes, but who do we believe? Longy said only 30% of scientists believe in global warming.

Do we go with the gloom merchants, or mathematical experts like Longy?

Karnal wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics. Yes, but who do we believe? Longy said only 30% of scientists believe in global warming. Do we go with the gloom merchants, or mathematical experts like Longy?

Longie even said that every measurement is just a statistical error.  We should listen to longie exhaust he has university level statistics skills.

Karnal wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:27pm:

Yes, but who do we believe? Longy said only 30% of scientists believe in global warming. Do we go with the gloom merchants, or mathematical experts like Longy?

how can one ignore a mathematical genius ?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:38pm:

This time the ugly sod's comment was  Quote: climate was "getting out of control". out of control when year in, year out, temperature remains the same?  Even if you were to agree with NASA's claim (and they have a habit of being wrong) the increase on last year is 0.02 degrees.  Surely, by any estimation that has to be well within the margin of error.  it is not even measurable by most thermometers outside of scientific instruments. And when seen in a graph of all the other years, the 'increase' is not even statistically valid. And that stupid cow Milne claims people will die from heat stroke.  From 0.02degrees?????  they wouldn't even notice until it was a few degrees, nevermind die. but the climate hysterics are the chicken littles of the 21st century. idiots, all of them.

No-one seems to be taking you seriously Longy. Let me be the first in this thread to try.

"Ugly sod", not a possible. She can be one and only one, you mentioned she. A sod would be male.

I would think that result was after taking "margin of error" into consideration.

Please elaborate.

She again, not a sod. .02 is not universal, it the global average. Much higher in some places and much lower in some like when the Arctic came to the USA.

We make good BFFs, eh?

Quote:

... climate was "getting out of control"

Labor and the Greens are pressuring the Government to do more to combat climate change, in light of a new report showing 2014 as the hottest year in modern history.

The data from America's space agency NASA shows that not only was 2014 the warmest year recorded since 1880, 10 of the hottest years on record have happened since 1998.


longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:38pm:

year in, year out, temperature remains the same

Researchers said the long-term trend was being driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.

Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said the Government simply does not get it.

"It's putting ideology in front of common sense," he said.

"Whilst we know that we can't attribute specific events to climate change, what we can say is that extreme occurrences are happening more regularly and are more extreme."

Greens leader Christine Milne said the climate was "getting out of control".

Continued ...


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-17/labor-greens-pressure-abbott-as-2014-named-hottest-on-record/6023162

Funny that someone who supports Tony Abbott can call Milne a fool while supporting the team captain of fools.

Karnal wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics. Yes, but who do we believe? Longy said only 30% of scientists believe in global warming. Do we go with the gloom merchants, or mathematical experts like Longy?

LW is wrong about the only 30% statement however even if he were correct it does include virtually 100% of the climate scientists.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics. Yes, but who do we believe? Longy said only 30% of scientists believe in global warming. Do we go with the gloom merchants, or mathematical experts like Longy? Longie even said that every measurement is just a statistical error.  We should listen to longie exhaust he has university level statistics skills.

Good point. Trust the idiots in the weather stations around the world to make such stupid mistakes.

They must be at least 0.8 degrees off on average, because temperatures have remained stable.

Liars.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 9:14pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics. Yes, but who do we believe? Longy said only 30% of scientists believe in global warming. Do we go with the gloom merchants, or mathematical experts like Longy? LW is wrong about the only 30% statement however even if he were correct it does include virtually 100% of the climate scientists.

Yes, but Longy is including all the scientists who didn’t go to uni because the professors are idiots.

Its time wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

What if CC policy is one big scam, and we make the world a better place , for nothing .

It is a scam - to prop up uneconomical and unaffordable so-called "green" energy industry.

Its time wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

What if CC policy is one big scam, and we make the world a better place , for nothing .

How is reducing CO2 in the atmosphere ;making it a better place' if CO2 is shown to be not harmful and improves plant growth ie FOOD?

John Smith wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:22pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics.

every single one of which receives massive govt funding to study CC.  couldn't be a more political or biased rationale if you tried.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 9:14pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics. Yes, but who do we believe? Longy said only 30% of scientists believe in global warming. Do we go with the gloom merchants, or mathematical experts like Longy? LW is wrong about the only 30% statement however even if he were correct it does include virtually 100% of the climate scientists.

unlike the '97%' claim, the 30% result came out of a peer-reviewed study.  and it included all scientists.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:28am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 9:14pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics. Yes, but who do we believe? Longy said only 30% of scientists believe in global warming. Do we go with the gloom merchants, or mathematical experts like Longy? LW is wrong about the only 30% statement however even if he were correct it does include virtually 100% of the climate scientists. unlike the '97%' claim, the 30% result came out of a peer-reviewed study.  and it included all scientists.

The 97% "claim" was ONLY made up of climate scientists

The "reviewed study" included veterinarians, pharmacists and podiatrists ( ... or any "scientist" looking for a "research grant") - and was "funded" by the Koch Brothers, via the Heartland Institute

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:28am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 9:14pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics. Yes, but who do we believe? Longy said only 30% of scientists believe in global warming. Do we go with the gloom merchants, or mathematical experts like Longy? LW is wrong about the only 30% statement however even if he were correct it does include virtually 100% of the climate scientists. unlike the '97%' claim, the 30% result came out of a peer-reviewed study.  and it included all scientists.

Have a link to the peer-reviewed study ?

The only thing I can find on the subject is a survey with no verification that the respondents were even scientists let alone qualified in the field.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:26am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics. every single one of which receives massive govt funding to study CC.  couldn't be a more political or biased rationale if you tried.

as opposed to the wannabe scientists funded by the mining and oil sectors?

you are full of crap longstupidone ....

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:25am:

How is reducing CO2 in the atmosphere ;making it a better place' if CO2 is shown to be not harmful and improves plant growth ie FOOD?

This an interesting question because the krazy climate change cult for some reason believe that todays weather and co2 levels are just right even though they have varied wildly over thousands of years.
How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right?

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:38am:

How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right?

gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion?

The Greens are going to spend waste 170 million dollars on green energy, they should be able to get a few million dollars worth of power for that  ;D

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:41am:

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion?

Thats very scientific  ;D

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:41am:

The Greens are going to spend waste 170 million dollars on green energy ...

The Greens can't spend waste ANYTHING on ANYTHING

They don't hold GOVERNMENT - ANYWHERE

They can only vote with or against governments, on legislation

Abbott is all over the shop with his hypocrisy and constant contradictions.....He is sceptical about CC but will still spend billions doing as little as possible to combat something he does not believe in.....He says he believes carbon emissions are causing CC but wants to mine and export even more coal and gas.....He says he believes in a price signal for health care but denies a price signal for carbon emissions is the best policy.....He promotes CC sceptics to positions where they make decisions on something they deny is occurring and expects people to accept this is the best way to develop policy.....Abbott is a total flake who is so inconsistent he cannot be trusted!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]   

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 8:09am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 7:28am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 9:14pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics. Yes, but who do we believe? Longy said only 30% of scientists believe in global warming. Do we go with the gloom merchants, or mathematical experts like Longy? LW is wrong about the only 30% statement however even if he were correct it does include virtually 100% of the climate scientists. unlike the '97%' claim, the 30% result came out of a peer-reviewed study.  and it included all scientists. The 97% "claim" was ONLY made up of climate scientists The "reviewed study" included veterinarians, pharmacists and podiatrists ( ... or any "scientist" looking for a "research grant") - and was "funded" by the Koch Brothers, via the Heartland Institute

so if you want to use funding as a credibility test then we can dismiss virtually all climate studes ever done since they were all done by govt funded, biased groups dependent on govt research funds for their existence.

Unlike you I mix with environmental scientists all the time included some who are among the worlds best in their fields.  Frankly, 30% overstates the number of climate change hysterics among them.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 8:21am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 7:28am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 9:14pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics. Yes, but who do we believe? Longy said only 30% of scientists believe in global warming. Do we go with the gloom merchants, or mathematical experts like Longy? LW is wrong about the only 30% statement however even if he were correct it does include virtually 100% of the climate scientists. unlike the '97%' claim, the 30% result came out of a peer-reviewed study.  and it included all scientists. Have a link to the peer-reviewed study ? The only thing I can find on the subject is a survey with no verification that the respondents were even scientists let alone qualified in the field.

It was discussed on here at some length and I do not have the link.  Mind you, would it matter?  is there a single chance that anyone on here will ever believe a single proven fact not in alignment with their ideology?  And as proof, the goldfish-memory posters on here are once again asking yet again for a link to something that has been repeatedly given - usually to the same people.

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:41am:

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion?

and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference?

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:42am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? Thats very scientific  ;D

you don't need a PhD to know when you are comfortable.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference?

I'm certainly sweating more than I used to.

when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference?

Longy, you really need to change this figure. A 0.2 degree rise per year would be catestrophic.

I don’t want you to be seen as an alarmist or troublemaker. Change the maths, please.

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 1:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D

100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 6:13pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees.

yes, 34 degrees is slightly warmer than 32 ... you can't tell?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 12:01pm:

It was discussed on here at some length and I do not have the link.  Mind you, would it matter?  is there a single chance that anyone on here will ever believe a single proven fact not in alignment with their ideology?  And as proof, the goldfish-memory posters on here are once again asking yet again for a link to something that has been repeatedly given - usually to the same people.

the goldfish-memory posters on here are once again asking yet again for a link to something that has been repeatedly given


It was just the other day that I provided a link for about the 20th time to one gold fish about John Howard being drunk in parliament.

It was discussed on here at some length

Not by me I mostly tend to have little interest some of the topics on this subject as there is no point with only opposite views and minds locked to their position.

My feeling is that if it were true it would be revealed by a simple google search, it is the type of thing people would regularly reference if it had credibility and I did several unsucessful searches to find the info myself before asking.

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 6:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. yes, 34 degrees is slightly warmer than 32 ... you can't tell?

If that difference is a long term global outcome the difference would primarily be shown by the loss of world food production leading to about half a billion people not being able to survive.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 12:00pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 8:09am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 7:28am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 9:14pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics. Yes, but who do we believe? Longy said only 30% of scientists believe in global warming. Do we go with the gloom merchants, or mathematical experts like Longy? LW is wrong about the only 30% statement however even if he were correct it does include virtually 100% of the climate scientists. unlike the '97%' claim, the 30% result came out of a peer-reviewed study.  and it included all scientists. The 97% "claim" was ONLY made up of climate scientists The "reviewed study" included veterinarians, pharmacists and podiatrists ( ... or any "scientist" looking for a "research grant") - and was "funded" by the Koch Brothers, via the Heartland Institute so if you want to use funding as a credibility test then we can dismiss virtually all climate studes ever done since they were all done by govt funded, biased groups dependent on govt research funds for their existence.

So we can dismiss any research findings from a body funded by an international collective of governments - but place all our faith in research funded by a pair of oil barons ?

This "flatulencia cerebral" harks back to the days when collective government research was warning us that cigarettes were addictive and causing lung cancer
Meanwhile the tobacco industry was telling us that tobacco is non-addictive and clearing our bronchial system

Nine out of ten "doctors agreed"


http://summerofsisterlove.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/camels.jpg



We'll assume you're with the private research
- and oppose Toxic Tony's, so called, Future Fund for Medical Research
- as all this research and breakthrough discovery  would be "biased"

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 6:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. yes, 34 degrees is slightly warmer than 32 ... you can't tell?

Without a thermometer, no.  and nor can you.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:33pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. yes, 34 degrees is slightly warmer than 32 ... you can't tell? Without a thermometer, no.  and nor can you.

oh yes i can ....  :D :D :D

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:00pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 8:09am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 7:28am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 9:14pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 8:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:59pm: nothing like it .... global warming, agree or not, is based on science, not religion No, sorry, its based on politics, science has taken a back seat  ;D politics may be driving the denialists, but just about every major SCIENTIFIC organisation in the world supports the theory of man made climate change. thats not politics. Yes, but who do we believe? Longy said only 30% of scientists believe in global warming. Do we go with the gloom merchants, or mathematical experts like Longy? LW is wrong about the only 30% statement however even if he were correct it does include virtually 100% of the climate scientists. unlike the '97%' claim, the 30% result came out of a peer-reviewed study.  and it included all scientists. The 97% "claim" was ONLY made up of climate scientists The "reviewed study" included veterinarians, pharmacists and podiatrists ( ... or any "scientist" looking for a "research grant") - and was "funded" by the Koch Brothers, via the Heartland Institute so if you want to use funding as a credibility test then we can dismiss virtually all climate studes ever done since they were all done by govt funded, biased groups dependent on govt research funds for their existence. So we can dismiss any research findings from a body funded by an international collective of governments - but place all our faith in research funded by a pair of oil barons ? This "flatulencia cerebral" harks back to the days when collective government research was warning us that cigarettes were addictive and causing lung cancer Meanwhile the tobacco industry was telling us that tobacco is non-addictive and clearing our bronchial system Nine out of ten "doctors agreed" http://summerofsisterlove.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/camels.jpg We'll assume you're with the private research - and oppose Toxic Tony's, so called, Future Fund for Medical Research - as all this research and breakthrough discovery  would be "biased"

as did governments of the time.

I see nothing that would ever make me consider a government funding dependent body in any way INDEPENDENT.  what we have is TWO groups that are paid for their opinions.

but the truth is obtained via observation as we watch our climate not change at all.  DECADES of no change.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:35pm:

but the truth is obtained via observation

doesn't that mean you'll have to open your eyes? it'll never happen ... nope, you'll have to keep getting your truth via Bolt and Jones

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:35pm:

but the truth is obtained via observation as we watch our climate not change at all.  DECADES of no change.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 9:01pm:

Quote: ... climate was "getting out of control" longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:38pm: year in, year out, temperature remains the same The data from America's space agency NASA shows that not only was 2014 the warmest year recorded since 1880, 10 of the hottest years on record have happened since 1998.

innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:53pm:

Its time wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:45pm: What if CC policy is one big scam, and we make the world a better place , for nothing . But the result of the billions spent on making the world a better place has been proven to be nothing more than a piss in the ocean. Its like sacrificing virgins in 15th century Peru to stop the eclipse, something else I'm sure you would have been on board with if you were there at the time.

correction... hundreds of billions

leaving the debt to our grand children...

they'll be so proud of their moronic grand parents..  ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 6:13pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees.

Longy, where’s your maths? A 0.02 degree rise a year is a 10 degree rise in 50 years!

My God, you simply must change the formula. This is urgent!

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 6:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. yes, 34 degrees is slightly warmer than 32 ... you can't tell?

Not at all, Longy, it depends on the maths. By your calculation, that’s NO CHANGE AT ALL.

double post

Karnal wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 8:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. Longy, where’s your maths? A 0.02 degree rise a year is a 10 degree rise in 50 years! My God, you simply must change the formula. This is urgent!

keep up Karnal, this is 10 yr old level maths, longie never claimed to have studied at that level, he's studied university level maths ... you cannot expect him to know it all?

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 7:33pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. yes, 34 degrees is slightly warmer than 32 ... you can't tell? Without a thermometer, no.  and nor can you. oh yes i can ....  :D :D :D

I don't know if there is any basis for this but I can also, it seems to me that when temperature gets to the top end that the heat feels like a logarithmic increase. To me 34 is a lot hotter than 32 - 32 is hot but 34 is oppressive.

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 8:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. Longy, where’s your maths? A 0.02 degree rise a year is a 10 degree rise in 50 years! My God, you simply must change the formula. This is urgent! keep up Karnal, this is 10 yr old level maths, longie never claimed to have studied at that level, he's studied university level maths ... you cannot expect him to know it all?

Guys plug those numbers into a calculator if in doubt, I think someone lost a 0 somewhere.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 10:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 7:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 7:33pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. yes, 34 degrees is slightly warmer than 32 ... you can't tell? Without a thermometer, no.  and nor can you. oh yes i can ....  :D :D :D I don't know if there is any basis for this but I can also, it seems to me that when temperature gets to the top end that the heat feels like a logarithmic increase. To me 34 is a lot hotter than 32 - 32 is hot but 34 is oppressive.

i have to do a lot outdoors work as part of my work ... I often can't do it at 34 whereas I can at 32 ... humidity also plays a big part. I'm lucky in that I can pick and choose when I do my work so I usually save the outdoor stuff for milder days

Just because longstupidone has lost his senses, it doesn't mean everyone has :D :D

Well I was certainly glad I spent up big on Y2K ,

I think climate change is real.
Having Christine support that idea does make me nervous that I may be wrong

Difference between 32°C and 34°C will be felt as rather higher maximum temperatures.

Karnal wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 8:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. Longy, where’s your maths? A 0.02 degree rise a year is a 10 degree rise in 50 years! My God, you simply must change the formula. This is urgent!

Maths done by warmist fools....no wonder they get everything wrong. .....

0.02 x 50 = ..........    ;D

Did you know the error bars are 500 times more than this so called record  ;D

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 8:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 7:35pm: but the truth is obtained via observation as we watch our climate not change at all.  DECADES of no change. buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 9:01pm: Quote: ... climate was "getting out of control" longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:38pm: year in, year out, temperature remains the same The data from America's space agency NASA shows that not only was 2014 the warmest year recorded since 1880, 10 of the hottest years on record have happened since 1998.

have another think about that statement.  If the claim is that warming has stopped in the last 17 years does that not also imply strongly that most of the hottest years would also be in that last 17?  Does that in any way invalidate the claim that warming has STOPPED?

Rider wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 7:26am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 8:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. Longy, where’s your maths? A 0.02 degree rise a year is a 10 degree rise in 50 years! My God, you simply must change the formula. This is urgent! Maths done by warmist fools....no wonder they get everything wrong. ..... 0.02 x 50 = ..........    ;D Did you know the error bars are 500 times more than this so called record  ;D

now you know why Karnal is in such awe of my math skills.  he cannot multiply, add and certainly nothing more advances that year 8 maths.

0.02 is well within the range of statistically INSIGNIFICANT. 

Rider wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 7:26am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 8:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. Longy, where’s your maths? A 0.02 degree rise a year is a 10 degree rise in 50 years! My God, you simply must change the formula. This is urgent! Maths done by warmist fools....no wonder they get everything wrong. ..... 0.02 x 50 = ..........    ;D Did you know the error bars are 500 times more than this so called record  ;D

It was 0.2 a second ago. Has Longy changed the maths?

Thank God for that. It was touch and go there for a sec.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 5:23am:

Well I was certainly glad I spent up big on Y2K , I think climate change is real. Having Christine support that idea does make me nervous that I may be wrong

The main reason that Y2K was a fizzer is that most people did spend up on it, particularly in the areas that mattered.

Karnal wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 8:03am:

Rider wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 7:26am: Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 8:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. Longy, where’s your maths? A 0.02 degree rise a year is a 10 degree rise in 50 years! My God, you simply must change the formula. This is urgent! Maths done by warmist fools....no wonder they get everything wrong. ..... 0.02 x 50 = ..........    ;D Did you know the error bars are 500 times more than this so called record  ;D It was 0.2 a second ago. Has Longy changed the maths? Thank God for that. It was touch and go there for a sec.

No he made that number up a while ago - you didn't notice.

Karnal wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 8:03am:

Rider wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 7:26am: Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 8:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. Longy, where’s your maths? A 0.02 degree rise a year is a 10 degree rise in 50 years! My God, you simply must change the formula. This is urgent! Maths done by warmist fools....no wonder they get everything wrong. ..... 0.02 x 50 = ..........    ;D Did you know the error bars are 500 times more than this so called record  ;D It was 0.2 a second ago. Has Longy changed the maths? Thank God for that. It was touch and go there for a sec.

Quote:

Temperatures in 2014 were 1.24 F above the 20th century average, according to the National Climatic Data Centre.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 5:23am:

Well I was certainly glad I spent up big on Y2K , I think climate change is real.

So did Longy last year. Something must have happened to change his mind.

I think it was 2014 being the hottest year on record - that proves there has been.NO WARMING AT ALL.

Karnal wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 8:03am:

Rider wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 7:26am: Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 8:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. Longy, where’s your maths? A 0.02 degree rise a year is a 10 degree rise in 50 years! My God, you simply must change the formula. This is urgent! Maths done by warmist fools....no wonder they get everything wrong. ..... 0.02 x 50 = ..........    ;D Did you know the error bars are 500 times more than this so called record  ;D It was 0.2 a second ago. Has Longy changed the maths? Thank God for that. It was touch and go there for a sec.

Your position is total nonsense as it isn't an annual increase any way.

0.02 is swamped by the by the fact the error bars are 500 times this duplicitous record. 

So big effing what if a confected result based on duplicitous record selection and data massaging comes up with an insignificant non record. Talk about a dishonest and desperate press release.

Tabloid trash for mindless sheep.

Karnal wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 8:17am:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 5:23am: Well I was certainly glad I spent up big on Y2K , I think climate change is real. So did Longy last year. Something must have happened to change his mind. I think it was 2014 being the hottest year on record - that proves there has been.NO WARMING AT ALL.

My intuition tells me its real.
obviously when energy has been stored for millions of years there is a negative entropy effect, when you dig and drill it all up and oxidise it in 100 years there HAS to be an exothermic effect.

BUT,  I think the approach is wrong.

instead of the massive spend trying to hold back the tide (which will fail unless everyone turns off their air-con and walks to work) what we should be doing is spending on adapting TO the temperature rise.

so if there was direct action spending, it should be on making houses more cyclone proof, population control, securing good agricultural land, adapting housing, securing water resources and possibly developing a big military to protect ourselves from upcoming food and water wars.

karmal, you are a bright boy, you must know about the water table dropping in india, that literally millions are going to starve soon and that a carbon tax in OZ wont fix this.
what we need is probably to spend money on the oral contraceptive for indian farmers, to spend money on GM drought resistant crops.

you simply cant fight mother nature, as a farmer I know this.
it is the humans that will have to adapt to the change. it surprises me that bright people like yourself cant see we just have to accept change ( a leftie maxim surely) and adapt OURSELVES to it

The arrogance is in presuming we even CAN increase temperatures in some runaway fashion.  Even now, temperatures simply refuse to increase.  Nothing we do increases or reduces temperature and never has.  not one single climatic indicator is in any way outside recent historical norms or heading that way.

http://theaimn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/pears-graph-1-300x188.png

Only the sky fairy can increase the temperature, right Longy?

Rider wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 8:58am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 8:03am: Rider wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 7:26am: Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 8:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. Longy, where’s your maths? A 0.02 degree rise a year is a 10 degree rise in 50 years! My God, you simply must change the formula. This is urgent! Maths done by warmist fools....no wonder they get everything wrong. ..... 0.02 x 50 = ..........    ;D Did you know the error bars are 500 times more than this so called record  ;D It was 0.2 a second ago. Has Longy changed the maths? Thank God for that. It was touch and go there for a sec. Your position is total nonsense as it isn't an annual increase any way. 0.02 is swamped by the by the fact the error bars are 500 times this duplicitous record.  So big effing what if a confected result based on duplicitous record selection and data massaging comes up with an insignificant non record. Talk about a dishonest and desperate press release. Tabloid trash for mindless sheep.

Gee, Rider, you're going to have to dumb this down for idiots like me. "confected duplicitous record selection and data massaging"?

Please explain.

The 0.2 rise last year is Longy's figure. I'll thank you to let Longy change his own maths.

He would have done a PhD, but mathematicians are IDIOTS.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 9:00am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 8:17am: aquascoot wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 5:23am: Well I was certainly glad I spent up big on Y2K , I think climate change is real. So did Longy last year. Something must have happened to change his mind. I think it was 2014 being the hottest year on record - that proves there has been.NO WARMING AT ALL. My intuition tells me its real. obviously when energy has been stored for millions of years there is a negative entropy effect, when you dig and drill it all up and oxidise it in 100 years there HAS to be an exothermic effect.

You'd think so, Aquascoot, but in actual fact, there has been NO WARMING AT ALL.

0.8% is stable.

There have also been no environmental disaster refugees. None in the Philippines, Vietnam, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, the island of Tevalu,..

NOT ONE.

Intuition is a marvellous thing when used correctly, but Longy's going on the maths.

Karnal wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 9:31am:

Rider wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 8:58am: Karnal wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 8:03am: Rider wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 7:26am: Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 8:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:02pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:41am: innocentbystander. wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:38am: How did they come to the conclusion that todays weather and co2 levels are just right? gee, i don't know ... could it be because they are comfortable when they go outside? how do you think they came to that conclusion? and you can tell the difference between 2014 and 2013 with its supposed 0.02degree difference? I'm certainly sweating more than I used to. when you add that .02 to next years .02 and the .02 the year after that and so on and so on , how long do you think before you can tell the difference? never mind the fact that by the time you can tell its to late :D :D 100-200 years, maybe more.  Unless you think you can tell without looking, the difference between 32 and 34 degrees. Longy, where’s your maths? A 0.02 degree rise a year is a 10 degree rise in 50 years! My God, you simply must change the formula. This is urgent! Maths done by warmist fools....no wonder they get everything wrong. ..... 0.02 x 50 = ..........    ;D Did you know the error bars are 500 times more than this so called record  ;D It was 0.2 a second ago. Has Longy changed the maths? Thank God for that. It was touch and go there for a sec. Your position is total nonsense as it isn't an annual increase any way. 0.02 is swamped by the by the fact the error bars are 500 times this duplicitous record.  So big effing what if a confected result based on duplicitous record selection and data massaging comes up with an insignificant non record. Talk about a dishonest and desperate press release. Tabloid trash for mindless sheep. Gee, Rider, you're going to have to dumb this down for idiots like me. "confected duplicitous record selection and data massaging"? Please explain. The 0.2 rise last year is Longy's figure. I'll thank you to let Longy change his own maths. He would have done a PhD, but mathematicians are IDIOTS.

Yeah...nah. Pointless...as pointless as wetting your bed about 0.02 of a degree whether it be accurate or not  ;D  ;D

I'm not sure if it's pointless discerning between a 0.2 and a 0.02 degree rise in temperature, Rider.

Longy believes in accuracy.

Karnal wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 2:14pm:

I'm not sure if it's pointless discerning between a 0.2 and a 0.02 degree rise in temperature, Rider. Longy believes in accuracy.

Its a pity you don't.  you misquote, misinterpret and lie.

in the meantime, climate remains unchanged for almost two decades.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 2:38pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:14pm: I'm not sure if it's pointless discerning between a 0.2 and a 0.02 degree rise in temperature, Rider. Longy believes in accuracy. Its a pity you don't.  you misquote, misinterpret and lie. in the meantime, climate remains unchanged for almost two decades.

So nothing is melting the polar ice, nothing is raising sea levels, nothing is causing major bushfires to break out earlier and earlier in spring?

Garbage! The world is warming!

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 2:38pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:14pm: I'm not sure if it's pointless discerning between a 0.2 and a 0.02 degree rise in temperature, Rider. Longy believes in accuracy. Its a pity you don't.  you misquote, misinterpret and lie. in the meantime, climate remains unchanged for almost two decades.

But, Longy, you've already described a rise of 0.8 degrees in 18 years as NO CHANGE AT ALL.

Was this a misinterpretation?

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:38pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:14pm: I'm not sure if it's pointless discerning between a 0.2 and a 0.02 degree rise in temperature, Rider. Longy believes in accuracy. Its a pity you don't.  you misquote, misinterpret and lie. in the meantime, climate remains unchanged for almost two decades. So nothing is melting the polar ice, nothing is raising se levels, nothing is causing major bushfires to break out earlier and earlier in spring?

Exactly. Nothing is a mathematical figure.

Longy's using a different set of numerals.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:38pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:14pm: I'm not sure if it's pointless discerning between a 0.2 and a 0.02 degree rise in temperature, Rider. Longy believes in accuracy. Its a pity you don't.  you misquote, misinterpret and lie. in the meantime, climate remains unchanged for almost two decades. So nothing is melting the polar ice, nothing is raising se levels, nothing is causing major bushfires to break out earlier and earlier in spring? Garbage! The world is warming!

ice extents ebb and rise regularly. the arctic has melted in the past and despite annual predictions that it will melt, it never does.  sea rises are MINISCULE.  we were supposed to have 3M rises by now and glaciers all gone...

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 6:59pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:50pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:38pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:14pm: I'm not sure if it's pointless discerning between a 0.2 and a 0.02 degree rise in temperature, Rider. Longy believes in accuracy. Its a pity you don't.  you misquote, misinterpret and lie. in the meantime, climate remains unchanged for almost two decades. So nothing is melting the polar ice, nothing is raising se levels, nothing is causing major bushfires to break out earlier and earlier in spring? Garbage! The world is warming! ice extents ebb and rise regularly. the arctic has melted in the past and despite annual predictions that it will melt, it never does.  sea rises are MINISCULE.  we were supposed to have 3M rises by now and glaciers all gone...

Sea level rises are real tho, 3m rises predicted by silly people notwithstanding. The Arctic ice shrinks more and more practically every year and now Antarctic ice is increasingly moving onto the sea. Again, I doubt a reputable scientist predicted the Arctic Ocean would be totally icefree any time soon. But the ice extent and volume inexorably shrinks.

Saying there is a pause in AGW is not in accord with the facts.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 7:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 6:59pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:50pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:38pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 2:14pm: I'm not sure if it's pointless discerning between a 0.2 and a 0.02 degree rise in temperature, Rider. Longy believes in accuracy. Its a pity you don't.  you misquote, misinterpret and lie. in the meantime, climate remains unchanged for almost two decades. So nothing is melting the polar ice, nothing is raising se levels, nothing is causing major bushfires to break out earlier and earlier in spring? Garbage! The world is warming! ice extents ebb and rise regularly. the arctic has melted in the past and despite annual predictions that it will melt, it never does.  sea rises are MINISCULE.  we were supposed to have 3M rises by now and glaciers all gone... Sea level rises are real tho, 3m rises predicted by silly people notwithstanding. The Arctic ice shrinks more and more practically every year and now Antarctic ice is increasingly moving onto the sea. Again, I doubt a reputable scientist predicted the Arctic Ocean would be totally icefree any time soon. But the ice extent and volume inexorably shrinks. Saying there is a pause in AGW is not in accord with the facts.

2007 was supposed to be the year the arctic melted.  of course it go nowhere near and now, the arctic is even growing slightly.  You will dispute it of course and demand a link that you will then dispute or ignore.

no fact has a chance of getting past the chronic debilitating stupidity that you possess.

Any chance of a link to any of that farrago of rubbish?  :D :D

Nah, bet not.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 7:26pm:

Any chance of a link to any of that farrago of rubbish?  :D :D Nah, bet not.

it would be throwing pearls before swine. and no, that wasn't a metaphor.

You cannot be believed in your AGW denialism. You are starting to look more and more like a figure of fun.

They’re fools, Longy. They don’t deserve you.

Pigs.

They’re fools, Longy. They don’t deserve you.

Pigs.