http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/earths-climate-sensitivity-to/54522483


Quote:

Earth's climate sensitivity to CO2 has been underestimated December 31, 2015; 3:42 PM ET Scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have determined that Earth's climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 has been underestimated. In order to quantify future climate change, scientists need to know the transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of Earth. The TCR is the projected global mean surface temperature changes (up to a century out) in response to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration. The ECS is similar, but goes out farther in time (many centuries). Researchers from NASA GISS have determined that previous studies have relied on too simplistic assumptions when accounting for the temperature impacts of climate drivers other than CO2. One such driver are aerosols. These simplistic assumptions have resulted in incorrect estimates of TCR and ECS, according to NASA's Gavin Schmidt, who is also a co-author of the study. "The problem with that (earlier) approach is that it falls way short of capturing the individual regional impacts of each of those variables," said Schmidt. The team of NASA GISS scientists proceeded to make detailed calculations by figuring out the temperature impact of several variables such as greenhouse gases, natural/man-made aerosols, ozone concentrations and land use changes based on actual observations from 1850-2005 using a very large ensemble of computer simulations. What they (NASA GISS) found was that these climate drivers do not necessarily behave like CO2. Each climate driver has a particular set of conditions that affects the temperature response of Earth, according to the NASA report. According to the NASA GISS researchers, the predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be, which means that Earth's climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 has been underestimated. "If you've got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you're systematically underestimating what's going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver," Schmidt said. (via NASA)

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 4:29pm:

According to the NASA GISS researchers, the predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be, which means that Earth's climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 has been underestimated.

Wow. CO₂ climbing, temperatures basically moving sideways and they underestimated sensitivity to CO₂? Temperatures should be sky-rocketing, according to AGW theory.

"Torture the data long enough and it will confess."

Ronald H. Coase, Essays on Economics and Economists

Listen here you...how about posting something worth reading for a change.

Take for example, people's climate sensitivity.

Right now, we're sitting in the middle of freaking Summer here in NSW, freezing our tits off, wearing track suits and jumpers, looking for doonas, umbrellas and heaters.

As if that's not enough, many people are being told to evacuate their homes in some parts of the state due to extreme flooding thanks to non stop heavy rain.

Speaking of flooding, the bottom half of my garden is under water, I've got Mother's Day flowers who think it's late Autumn so right now they're in full bloom.....and my blessed choko vine thinks Winter's on the way so it's not producing a single vegetable.

The back part of my home .... the sun room, looks like a Chinese laundry, my dryer is exhausted to the point where it's about to go on strike......and quite frankly....I'm fed up with it all.

Climate sensitivity. In a nutshell.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 4:51pm:

Listen here you...how about posting something worth reading for a change. Take for example, people's climate sensitivity. Right now, we're sitting in the middle of freaking Summer here in NSW, freezing our tits off, wearing track suits and jumpers, looking for doonas, umbrellas and heaters. As if that's not enough, many people are being told to evacuate their homes in some parts of the state due to extreme flooding thanks to non stop heavy rain. Speaking of flooding, the bottom half of my garden is under water, I've got Mother's Day flowers who think it's late Autumn so right now they're in full bloom.....and my blessed choko vine thinks Winter's on the way so it's not producing a single vegetable. The back part of my home .... the sun room, looks like a Chinese laundry, my dryer is exhausted to the point where it's about to go on strike......and quite frankly....I'm fed up with it all. How's that for climate sensitivity?

Why do you post your irrelevant banal garbage in serious Threads, Lisa Jones?  Attention seeking much? 

lee wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 4:34pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 4:29pm: According to the NASA GISS researchers, the predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be, which means that Earth's climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 has been underestimated. Wow. CO2 climbing, temperatures basically moving sideways and they underestimated sensitivity to CO2? Temperatures should be sky-rocketing, according to AGW theory. "Torture the data long enough and it will confess." Ronald H. Coase, Essays on Economics and Economists

freaking NASA.  good at space flight. lousy with climate.  every other bit of research is claiming that CO2 sensitivity has been grossly OVER-stated and rather obviously so.  Co2 is increasing, temperatures are not. Clearly the sensistivity is small if indeed there is any correlation at all. there is clearly no CAUSATION.


it is quite fascinating how easy it is to con normally intelligent people into beleiving any bit of rubbish.  you would need to be brain-dead to support ACC and yet... so many do. after all there is not a single shred of verifiable proof and millions of peices of evidence to the contrary.

I would love to see ACC go before a court using evidence-based rules.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 4:51pm:

Listen here you...how about posting something worth reading for a change. Take for example, people's climate sensitivity. Right now, we're sitting in the middle of freaking Summer here in NSW, freezing our tits off, wearing track suits and jumpers, looking for doonas, umbrellas and heaters. As if that's not enough, many people are being told to evacuate their homes in some parts of the state due to extreme flooding thanks to non stop heavy rain. Speaking of flooding, the bottom half of my garden is under water, I've got Mother's Day flowers who think it's late Autumn so right now they're in full bloom.....and my blessed choko vine thinks Winter's on the way so it's not producing a single vegetable. The back part of my home .... the sun room, looks like a Chinese laundry, my dryer is exhausted to the point where it's about to go on strike......and quite frankly....I'm fed up with it all. Climate sensitivity. In a nutshell.

And don't start with weather vs climate discussions either.

I find them most tiresome.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 4:51pm:

Listen here you...how about posting something worth reading for a change. Take for example, people's climate sensitivity. Right now, we're sitting in the middle of freaking Summer here in NSW, freezing our tits off, wearing track suits and jumpers, looking for doonas, umbrellas and heaters. As if that's not enough, many people are being told to evacuate their homes in some parts of the state due to extreme flooding thanks to non stop heavy rain. Speaking of flooding, the bottom half of my garden is under water, I've got Mother's Day flowers who think it's late Autumn so right now they're in full bloom.....and my blessed choko vine thinks Winter's on the way so it's not producing a single vegetable. The back part of my home .... the sun room, looks like a Chinese laundry, my dryer is exhausted to the point where it's about to go on strike......and quite frankly....I'm fed up with it all. Climate sensitivity. In a nutshell.

Everything that's happening to you is due to global warming.

At least that's what the alarmists will tell you so the oligarchy can tax us all on the air we breath.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 4:54pm:

lee wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 4:34pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 4:29pm: According to the NASA GISS researchers, the predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be, which means that Earth's climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 has been underestimated. Wow. CO2 climbing, temperatures basically moving sideways and they underestimated sensitivity to CO2? Temperatures should be sky-rocketing, according to AGW theory. "Torture the data long enough and it will confess." Ronald H. Coase, Essays on Economics and Economists freaking NASA.  good at space flight. lousy with climate.  every other bit of research is claiming that CO2 sensitivity has been grossly OVER-stated and rather obviously so.  Co2 is increasing, temperatures are not. Clearly the sensistivity is small if indeed there is any correlation at all. there is clearly no CAUSATION. it is quite fascinating how easy it is to con normally intelligent people into beleiving any bit of rubbish.  you would need to be brain-dead to support ACC and yet... so many do. after all there is not a single shred of verifiable proof and millions of peices of evidence to the contrary. I would love to see ACC go before a court using evidence-based rules.

It's all vested-interest driven.

And that's nothing new.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 4:55pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 4:51pm: Listen here you...how about posting something worth reading for a change. Take for example, people's climate sensitivity. Right now, we're sitting in the middle of freaking Summer here in NSW, freezing our tits off, wearing track suits and jumpers, looking for doonas, umbrellas and heaters. As if that's not enough, many people are being told to evacuate their homes in some parts of the state due to extreme flooding thanks to non stop heavy rain. Speaking of flooding, the bottom half of my garden is under water, I've got Mother's Day flowers who think it's late Autumn so right now they're in full bloom.....and my blessed choko vine thinks Winter's on the way so it's not producing a single vegetable. The back part of my home .... the sun room, looks like a Chinese laundry, my dryer is exhausted to the point where it's about to go on strike......and quite frankly....I'm fed up with it all. Climate sensitivity. In a nutshell. And don't start with weather vs climate discussions either. I find them most tiresome.

Bullshit.  You would never even read them, and if you did, it would be well beneath your 'awesome' intellect.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 4:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 4:54pm: lee wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 4:34pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 4:29pm: According to the NASA GISS researchers, the predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be, which means that Earth's climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 has been underestimated. Wow. CO2 climbing, temperatures basically moving sideways and they underestimated sensitivity to CO2? Temperatures should be sky-rocketing, according to AGW theory. "Torture the data long enough and it will confess." Ronald H. Coase, Essays on Economics and Economists freaking NASA.  good at space flight. lousy with climate.  every other bit of research is claiming that CO2 sensitivity has been grossly OVER-stated and rather obviously so.  Co2 is increasing, temperatures are not. Clearly the sensistivity is small if indeed there is any correlation at all. there is clearly no CAUSATION. it is quite fascinating how easy it is to con normally intelligent people into beleiving any bit of rubbish.  you would need to be brain-dead to support ACC and yet... so many do. after all there is not a single shred of verifiable proof and millions of peices of evidence to the contrary. I would love to see ACC go before a court using evidence-based rules. It's all vested-interest driven. And that's nothing new.

Really?  Please explain in detail.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 4:54pm:

lee wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 4:34pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 4:29pm: According to the NASA GISS researchers, the predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be, which means that Earth's climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 has been underestimated. Wow. CO2 climbing, temperatures basically moving sideways and they underestimated sensitivity to CO2? Temperatures should be sky-rocketing, according to AGW theory. "Torture the data long enough and it will confess." Ronald H. Coase, Essays on Economics and Economists freaking NASA.  good at space flight. lousy with climate.

https://i.imgur.com/iWKad22.jpg

CO₂ is over 400 ppm now and continuing to climb.

Mankind is doomed.

http://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_14_co2_left.gif

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

This is a good interactive site which examines all possible causes:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Yep, I have come to the conclusion, after years of studying this, that the planet as we know it ... is fcuked.

No one has been able to alter the output of the machine, of the 'flawed operating system" of the planet.

I just want to make sure that those who are part of the disaster understand the situation, as they are going down with it.

And yet http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/CO2-no-climate-driver.pdf

i think that the stats came out yesterday that 5 of the hottest  years in the last century have since 2002.

so i think we are warming.

No biggie.

every problem must be seen as an opportunity.

Other over populated countries with poor farming techniques are going to be absolutley destroyed by this.

Then , if we are smart, limit population, use gm crops that are drought resistant, manage our resources, we can become the new Saudi arabia of world resources.

supertankers full of food and water sold offshore for a premium,

Opec can change to H 2 Opec  and we can get a quote on water per barrell.
I hear the kimberley is becoming wetter and wetter and wetter.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

Look how well the USA did out of WW2.

you just have to think laterally

mitasol wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 7:02am:

And yet http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/CO2-no-climate-driver.pdf

Of course it's not.  The entire planet is thinking and planning around something that does not exist.

Lucky we have you here!

BTW the document and the sources are all well known bogus stuff.

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 9:51pm:

CO2 is over 400 ppm now and continuing to climb. Mankind is doomed. http://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_14_co2_left.gif http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

what an incredibly convenient graph. This is despite evidence from ice cores of CO2 concentrations of 8000ppm and higher in the past.


liek so much nasa does in climate it is a flat out lie.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 7:10am:

i think that the stats came out yesterday that 5 of the hottest  years in the last century have since 2002. so i think we are warming. No biggie. every problem must be seen as an opportunity. Other over populated countries with poor farming techniques are going to be absolutley destroyed by this. Then , if we are smart, limit population, use gm crops that are drought resistant, manage our resources, we can become the new Saudi arabia of world resources. supertankers full of food and water sold offshore for a premium, Opec can change to H 2 Opec  and we can get a quote on water per barrell. I hear the kimberley is becoming wetter and wetter and wetter. Every cloud has a silver lining. Look how well the USA did out of WW2. you just have to think laterally

Said from the perspective of someone who resides on an unaffected planet, somewhere else?  As if you and yours will not be adversely affected?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 8:16am:

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 9:51pm: CO2 is over 400 ppm now and continuing to climb. Mankind is doomed. http://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_14_co2_left.gif http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ what an incredibly convenient graph. This is despite evidence from ice cores of CO2 concentrations of 8000ppm and higher in the past. liek so much nasa does in climate it is a flat out lie.

Please post links of what humans were up to at that time, when there was 8000 ppm.

Thanks in advance.

random wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 8:20am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 8:16am: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 9:51pm: CO2 is over 400 ppm now and continuing to climb. Mankind is doomed. http://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_14_co2_left.gif http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ what an incredibly convenient graph. This is despite evidence from ice cores of CO2 concentrations of 8000ppm and higher in the past. liek so much nasa does in climate it is a flat out lie. Please post links of what humans were up to at that time, when there was 8000 ppm. Thanks in advance.

no idea since it was a major ice age.  the point was that the graph is a flat-out lie and is part of the global lie that seeks to tell us that climate has never changed and only now is it doing so - despite the lack of evidence that it is changing at all.

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 9:51pm:

CO2 is over 400 ppm now and continuing to climb. Mankind is doomed. http://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_14_co2_left.gif http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

Where is the graph of CO₂ v temperature? Say 1960 to 2010.

https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/carbon_dioxide_2014.jpg

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 10:18am:

https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/carbon_dioxide_2014.jpg

Interesting but not CO₂ v temperature

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 8:46am:

random wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 8:20am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 8:16am: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 9:51pm: CO2 is over 400 ppm now and continuing to climb. Mankind is doomed. http://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_14_co2_left.gif http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ what an incredibly convenient graph. This is despite evidence from ice cores of CO2 concentrations of 8000ppm and higher in the past. liek so much nasa does in climate it is a flat out lie. Please post links of what humans were up to at that time, when there was 8000 ppm. Thanks in advance. no idea since it was a major ice age.  the point was that the graph is a flat-out lie and is part of the global lie that seeks to tell us that climate has never changed and only now is it doing so - despite the lack of evidence that it is changing at all.

Rates of change: should i just refer you to what i said 5 years ago!!!
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 10:08am:

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 9:51pm: CO2 is over 400 ppm now and continuing to climb. Mankind is doomed. http://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_14_co2_left.gif http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ Where is the graph of CO2 v temperature? Say 1960 to 2010.

Try this

Aus BOM
State of the Climate 2014

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/fig3.png

random wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 3:46pm:

lee wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:08am: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 9:51pm: CO2 is over 400 ppm now and continuing to climb. Mankind is doomed. http://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_14_co2_left.gif http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ Where is the graph of CO2 v temperature? Say 1960 to 2010. Try this Aus BOM State of the Climate 2014 http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/fig3.png

Still no CO₂ v temperature

You are being obtuse.

See post #22 for the CO2 and my post above for the temperature.  Both are going up, can you understand that?

Then there is the total heat increase.

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/fig10.png

lee wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 10:25am:

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:18am: https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/carbon_dioxide_2014.jpg Interesting but not CO2 v temperature

Here ya goze:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif

http://i64.tinypic.com/dopizl.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc

random wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 3:46pm:

lee wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:08am: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 9:51pm: CO2 is over 400 ppm now and continuing to climb. Mankind is doomed. http://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_14_co2_left.gif http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ Where is the graph of CO2 v temperature? Say 1960 to 2010. Try this Aus BOM State of the Climate 2014 http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/fig3.png

that graph shows an increase of just 0.6 degrees and no rise for 15 years. exactly where is the reason for panic given that it is still cooler than 1000 years ago when greenland was... GREEN and vikings sailed north of the island.

The Sun will determine the future of the Earth, not the CO2 levels.

red baron wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 5:17pm:

The Sun will determine the future of the Earth, not the CO2 levels.

Fire all scientists. Red Baron has issued a FATWA.

red baron wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 5:17pm:

The Sun will determine the future of the Earth, not the CO2 levels.

not the IPCC either.

red baron wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 5:17pm:

The Sun will determine the future of the Earth, not the CO2 levels.

SO it's all good then?   We can burn all the black stuff we want and nothing will happen?

You should have been in Paris a few weeks ago. 

Ajax wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 4:54pm:

http://i64.tinypic.com/dopizl.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc

Murrry smacking Salby?

"A CLIMATE sceptic professor fired from his Australian university for alleged policy breaches had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money.

Dr Murry Salby, sacked in May by Macquarie University in Sydney, was the subject of a long investigation by the US National Science Foundation."

random wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 4:10pm:

You are being obtuse. See post #22 for the CO2 and my post above for the temperature.  Both are going up, can you understand that? Then there is the total heat increase. http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/fig10.png

Are back to zetajoules. Why not just use ºC. The Argo buoys show that as 0.023ºC/decade. Doesn't sound nearly as scary, does it?

random wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 6:31pm:

Ajax wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 4:54pm: http://i64.tinypic.com/dopizl.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc Murrry smacking Salby? "A CLIMATE sceptic professor fired from his Australian university for alleged policy breaches had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money. Dr Murry Salby, sacked in May by Macquarie University in Sydney, was the subject of a long investigation by the US National Science Foundation."

Maybe he didn't want to pledge allegiance to the false science that is Anthropogenic global warming.

http://watchdog.org/239743/criminalizing-climate-science/

He makes a strong case that the Earth is heating up naturally and that man's contribution through CO2 emissions is minimal.

You want to be taxed on something that has been proven false............?????

http://i68.tinypic.com/mj2std.png

Where is the correlation between CO2 and temperature..??

http://i65.tinypic.com/3wryx.jpg

Co2 has never controlled the temperature here on Earth, in fact its the other way around when the Earth heats up more CO2 gets released into the atmosphere.

WAKE UP for goodness sake.

http://i66.tinypic.com/nzf71j.jpg

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

(1).....On a small time scale (NO), (11,000 years)

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

Graph-1
http://i45.tinypic.com/snic0j.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

(2).....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO) , It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.

WARNING ! This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time
scales well

Graph-2
http://i49.tinypic.com/s5k0nn.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right.

It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2.

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us.

However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature.

The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

(3).....On a long time scale (NO) , (millions of years)

Graph-3
http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg

[url]http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf[/urll]

What about the NOW....!!!

http://i65.tinypic.com/3wryx.jpg
http://i64.tinypic.com/23qyxif.png http://i68.tinypic.com/2pqmljn.png

So we have more fabricated bullshite from Wattsfcukedupwiththat?  The Exxon funded shill?

http://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/wp-content/uploads/sites/29639/2015/09/Yawning.jpg

Now let me think about this carefully, for a bit.

Who do I believe?  An anonymous poster on the interweb posting Exxon funded pretty graphs.
OR
NOAA, NASA, BOM and the IPCC?

tic tic tic tic ... ding!

I'll go with the scientists ;)

Edit: The 'lying bastard' part of the Anthony Watts stuff is the deliberately ignoring the total energy increase and using only the land based anomalies.  Ignoring 90% of the total in the oceans.  Typical shill stuff, we come to expect that now.

Oh sigh.....more ping pong.

How predictable and boring.

EVERY topic on climate change ends up like this.

IT'S CALLED A STALEMATE.

Over it  >:(

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 5:58am:

Oh sigh.....more ping pong. How predictable and boring. EVERY topic on climate change ends up like this. IT'S CALLED A STALEMATE. Over it  >:(

What stalemate?  Do you take stuff from Exxon seriously? Some post unsubstantiated bullshite from Exxon funded think tanks and others go with science. 

Where is the stalemate?  I didn't see any of these chats in Paris last.

But if you are confused, that indicates you have trouble differentiating quality information from sales propaganda.  That happens.

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 6:05am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:58am: Oh sigh.....more ping pong. How predictable and boring. EVERY topic on climate change ends up like this. IT'S CALLED A STALEMATE. Over it  >:( What stalemate?  Some post unsubstantiated bullshite from Exxon funded think tanks and others go with science.  Where is the stalemate?  I didn't see any of these chats in Paris last. But if you are confused, that indicates you have trouble differentiating quality information from sales propaganda.  That happens.

There's never been a middle ground in ANY of these discussions.

THAT'S (AT THE CORE OF) "THE STALEMATE".

A constant tug of war achieves nothing.

It only wastes time.

You are supporting the position that there is a debate on this, there isn't.  There is no stalemate.  The perception that there is exist only in forums like this now.  That's because Big energy is still spending money on misinformation.

The planets heads of government just met in Paris recently and they don't see any stalemate.  Obama has described climate change as a threat to US National Security.

Any perception that there is a question over what is happening is an indication of the effort being placed into infiltrating social media by the Big energy lobby.

Same graphs that Ajax posted appear in every forum of any size across the planet.  No coincidence, the denial machine is strong.

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 6:22am:

You are supporting the position that there is a debate on this, there isn't.  There is no stalemate.  The perception that there is exist only in forums like this now.  That's because Big energy is still spending money on misinformation. The planets heads of government just met in Paris recently and they don't see any stalemate.  Obama has described climate change as a threat to US National Security. Any perception that there is a question over what is happening is an indication of the effort being placed into infiltrating social media by the Big energy lobby. Same graphs that Ajax posted appear in every forum of any size across the planet.  No coincidence.

1. Sorry, I need to get going. I'm off to work today (we're very short staffed in our office).

2. Re what Obama stated.... that could mean ANYTHING. Tip: Whenever ANY POLITICIAN reads a carefully worded statement ...read btwn the lines.

3. I personally believe we have a case to answer.

4. I won't be home til 8pm tonight. Chat then?

2. Re what Obama stated.... that could mean ANYTHING. Tip: Whenever ANY POLITICIAN reads a carefully worded statement ...read btwn the lines.

Could mean anything but it does not.  It means what it says.  Do some reading if you are interested.

3. I personally believe we have a case to answer.

Your personal beliefs are semi-interesting and irrelevant in a discussion on science.

4. I won't be home til 8pm tonight. Chat then?[/quote]

What?  Chat?  WTF?  This is a forum.

:-X
random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 6:05am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:58am: Oh sigh.....more ping pong. How predictable and boring. EVERY topic on climate change ends up like this. IT'S CALLED A STALEMATE. Over it  >:( What stalemate?  Do you take stuff from Exxon seriously? Some post unsubstantiated bullshite from Exxon funded think tanks and others go with science.  Where is the stalemate?  I didn't see any of these chats in Paris last. But if you are confused, that indicates you have trouble differentiating quality information from sales propaganda.  That happens.

The EXxon claims are BS and long since been proven rubbish.  but it serves the purpose for you to repeat it since you are brainless.

and 'sceptical science' is responsible since the one thing it is NOT is sceptical?  and run by a nobody from QLD uni?

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 6:22am:

You are supporting the position that there is a debate on this, there isn't.  There is no stalemate.  The perception that there is exist only in forums like this now.  That's because Big energy is still spending money on misinformation. The planets heads of government just met in Paris recently and they don't see any stalemate.  Obama has described climate change as a threat to US National Security. Any perception that there is a question over what is happening is an indication of the effort being placed into infiltrating social media by the Big energy lobby. Same graphs that Ajax posted appear in every forum of any size across the planet.  No coincidence, the denial machine is strong.

forget your silly notions and point me to the actual environmental evidence of runaway global warming.  no warming in 18 years.  a 'massive' 0.6 degree rise over 100 years after coming out of the little ice age.  no melting of the poles and no increase in extreme weather events.  and the 'massive' sea level rises of just 4 inches?


forget the hyperbole and show me the FACTS.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

random wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 6:22am: You are supporting the position that there is a debate on this, there isn't.  There is no stalemate.  The perception that there is exist only in forums like this now.  That's because Big energy is still spending money on misinformation. The planets heads of government just met in Paris recently and they don't see any stalemate.  Obama has described climate change as a threat to US National Security. Any perception that there is a question over what is happening is an indication of the effort being placed into infiltrating social media by the Big energy lobby. Same graphs that Ajax posted appear in every forum of any size across the planet.  No coincidence, the denial machine is strong. forget your silly notions and point me to the actual environmental evidence of runaway global warming.  no warming in 18 years.  a 'massive' 0.6 degree rise over 100 years after coming out of the little ice age.  no melting of the poles and no increase in extreme weather events.  and the 'massive' sea level rises of just 4 inches? forget the hyperbole and show me the FACTS.

Let's start with you proving some facts on the claims you have made.  Right now I say you are full of it.

You made the claims ... back em up.  Credible references would be appreciated.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:27am:

:-X random wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 6:05am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:58am: Oh sigh.....more ping pong. How predictable and boring. EVERY topic on climate change ends up like this. IT'S CALLED A STALEMATE. Over it  >:( What stalemate?  Do you take stuff from Exxon seriously? Some post unsubstantiated bullshite from Exxon funded think tanks and others go with science.  Where is the stalemate?  I didn't see any of these chats in Paris last. But if you are confused, that indicates you have trouble differentiating quality information from sales propaganda.  That happens. The EXxon claims are BS and long since been proven rubbish.  but it serves the purpose for you to repeat it since you are brainless. and 'sceptical science' is responsible since the one thing it is NOT is sceptical?  and run by a nobody from QLD uni?

Don think you are very good at this.


ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

"CMD recently provided the New York Attorney General with detailed information about ExxonMobil's funding of another climate change denial group, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Both CFACT and Heartland participate in ALEC, and have provided state legislators with climate denial briefings at recent ALEC conferences."

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/12/12997/market-has-spoken-funders-flee-free-market-climate-denial-group

Blah, blah, blah...yawn....The increased levels of CO2 have resulted in increased growth of vegetation (read cops)..Comes in handy when you have to feed the gut wrenching trillions.

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:48am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:27am: :-X random wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 6:05am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:58am: Oh sigh.....more ping pong. How predictable and boring. EVERY topic on climate change ends up like this. IT'S CALLED A STALEMATE. Over it  >:( What stalemate?  Do you take stuff from Exxon seriously? Some post unsubstantiated bullshite from Exxon funded think tanks and others go with science.  Where is the stalemate?  I didn't see any of these chats in Paris last. But if you are confused, that indicates you have trouble differentiating quality information from sales propaganda.  That happens. The EXxon claims are BS and long since been proven rubbish.  but it serves the purpose for you to repeat it since you are brainless. and 'sceptical science' is responsible since the one thing it is NOT is sceptical?  and run by a nobody from QLD uni? Don think you are very good at this. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers "CMD recently provided the New York Attorney General with detailed information about ExxonMobil's funding of another climate change denial group, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Both CFACT and Heartland participate in ALEC, and have provided state legislators with climate denial briefings at recent ALEC conferences." http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/12/12997/market-has-spoken-funders-flee-free-market-climate-denial-group

Longy has answered you nicely but I would like to reinforce one thing.

That bird flew out of its cage long ago that big oil is obstructing global warming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/energy-environment/oil-companies-climate-change-un.html?_r=0

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-02/shell-ceo-says-carbon-price-needed-to-tackle-climate-change/6824510

You see most of those corporations are owned by bankers somewhere high up in the triangle.

And its those greedy bankers that are behind the Anthropogenic global warming religion, them and their mates the club of Rome, look it up some time cork head.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1450609083

Ajax wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 3:23pm:

random wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:48am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:27am: :-X random wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 6:05am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:58am: Oh sigh.....more ping pong. How predictable and boring. EVERY topic on climate change ends up like this. IT'S CALLED A STALEMATE. Over it  >:( What stalemate?  Do you take stuff from Exxon seriously? Some post unsubstantiated bullshite from Exxon funded think tanks and others go with science.  Where is the stalemate?  I didn't see any of these chats in Paris last. But if you are confused, that indicates you have trouble differentiating quality information from sales propaganda.  That happens. The EXxon claims are BS and long since been proven rubbish.  but it serves the purpose for you to repeat it since you are brainless. and 'sceptical science' is responsible since the one thing it is NOT is sceptical?  and run by a nobody from QLD uni? Don think you are very good at this. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers "CMD recently provided the New York Attorney General with detailed information about ExxonMobil's funding of another climate change denial group, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Both CFACT and Heartland participate in ALEC, and have provided state legislators with climate denial briefings at recent ALEC conferences." http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/12/12997/market-has-spoken-funders-flee-free-market-climate-denial-group Longy has answered you nicely but I would like to reinforce one thing. That bird flew out of its cage long ago that big oil is obstructing global warming. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/energy-environment/oil-companies-climate-change-un.html?_r=0 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-02/shell-ceo-says-carbon-price-needed-to-tackle-climate-change/6824510 You see most of those corporations are owned by bankers somewhere high up in the triangle. And its those greedy bankers that are behind the Anthropogenic global warming religion, them and their mates the club of Rome, look it up some time cork head. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1450609083

Longy failed, did nothing but crash and burn.  Like you will.

You are in lah lah land about Big not oil funding deniers.  I guessed you missed these in another thread.  I know you won't bother reading them, but happy reading anyway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-skeptic-group-works-to-reverse-renewable-energy-mandates/2012/11/24/124faaa0-3517-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/08/01/1217097533885.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/steve-coll-how-exxon-shaped-the-climate-debate/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html?em&_r=0
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/climate-sceptics-pai-heartland-institute
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VozItVJDQnE
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-24/hamilton-the-shadowy-world-of-ipa-finances/3849006

And you should read your links before posting them.

"None of the biggest American oil companies signed the declaration or were part of the group. The companies that were involved — including BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Saudi Aramco and Total — made no specific commitments toward helping to meet the climate challenge. "

You and your argument are fcuked up big time.

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 3:49pm:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-skeptic-group-works-to-reverse-renewable-energy-mandates/2012/11/24/124faaa0-3517-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/08/01/1217097533885.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/steve-coll-how-exxon-shaped-the-climate-debate/ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html?em&_r=0 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/climate-sceptics-pai-heartland-institute http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VozItVJDQnE http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-24/hamilton-the-shadowy-world-of-ipa-finances/3849006

Get with the times cork head that bird flew the coop ages ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-23/rockefeller-family-to-sell-oil-investments-to-reinvest-in-renew/5761966

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/10/16/group-of-big-oil-companies-pledge-support-on-climate-change-initiative/

Ajax wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 3:53pm:

random wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 3:49pm: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-skeptic-group-works-to-reverse-renewable-energy-mandates/2012/11/24/124faaa0-3517-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/08/01/1217097533885.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/steve-coll-how-exxon-shaped-the-climate-debate/ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html?em&_r=0 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/climate-sceptics-pai-heartland-institute http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VozItVJDQnE http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-24/hamilton-the-shadowy-world-of-ipa-finances/3849006 Get with the times cork head that bird flew the coop ages ago. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-23/rockefeller-family-to-sell-oil-investments-to-reinvest-in-renew/5761966 http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/10/16/group-of-big-oil-companies-pledge-support-on-climate-change-initiative/

Yes of course.  And what are they going to do about it?  Are they going to sell less black stuff?

And again, from your link ...

"The Oil and Gas Climate Initiative does not include any U.S.-based companies.

Exxon Mobil Corp. said in May it wasn’t going to “fake it” when it came to its views on climate change, arguing that technology can provide solutions to any impacts that result from increasing global temperatures."

They make money from selling more black stuff.   ;D

Anyone who thinks they mean it is delusional.  Looks like you are.

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 6:22am:

The planets heads of government just met in Paris recently and they don't see any stalemate.  Obama has described climate change as a threat to US National Security.

And what did they decide to do about this big, most important topic of our time?

They agreed to have another taxpayer funded gabfest in the future, to talk about doing something. That's what politicians do. They can't have a stalemate, the free trips, drinks and associated benefits would be gone.

But my point remains valid.  I didn't say they were acting, I said they were not questioning what is happening.

Nice try.

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:42am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:29am: random wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 6:22am: You are supporting the position that there is a debate on this, there isn't.  There is no stalemate.  The perception that there is exist only in forums like this now.  That's because Big energy is still spending money on misinformation. The planets heads of government just met in Paris recently and they don't see any stalemate.  Obama has described climate change as a threat to US National Security. Any perception that there is a question over what is happening is an indication of the effort being placed into infiltrating social media by the Big energy lobby. Same graphs that Ajax posted appear in every forum of any size across the planet.  No coincidence, the denial machine is strong. forget your silly notions and point me to the actual environmental evidence of runaway global warming.  no warming in 18 years.  a 'massive' 0.6 degree rise over 100 years after coming out of the little ice age.  no melting of the poles and no increase in extreme weather events.  and the 'massive' sea level rises of just 4 inches? forget the hyperbole and show me the FACTS. Let's start with you proving some facts on the claims you have made.  Right now I say you are full of it. You made the claims ... back em up.  Credible references would be appreciated.

it is in fact quite the reverse.  'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'  The climate Crazies claims of uncontrolled warming and catastrophe is an 'extraordinary claim'.  how about some extraordinary evidence?  I will be easy on you.  Even basic ordinary evidence will be accepted.

as will your surrendr when you utterly fail to proved proof of any kind.

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:48am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:27am: :-X random wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 6:05am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:58am: Oh sigh.....more ping pong. How predictable and boring. EVERY topic on climate change ends up like this. IT'S CALLED A STALEMATE. Over it  >:( What stalemate?  Do you take stuff from Exxon seriously? Some post unsubstantiated bullshite from Exxon funded think tanks and others go with science.  Where is the stalemate?  I didn't see any of these chats in Paris last. But if you are confused, that indicates you have trouble differentiating quality information from sales propaganda.  That happens. The EXxon claims are BS and long since been proven rubbish.  but it serves the purpose for you to repeat it since you are brainless. and 'sceptical science' is responsible since the one thing it is NOT is sceptical?  and run by a nobody from QLD uni? Don think you are very good at this. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers "CMD recently provided the New York Attorney General with detailed information about ExxonMobil's funding of another climate change denial group, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Both CFACT and Heartland participate in ALEC, and have provided state legislators with climate denial briefings at recent ALEC conferences." http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/12/12997/market-has-spoken-funders-flee-free-market-climate-denial-group

and the hundreds of billions provided by gullible governments to fund climate hysteria?


and it still doesnt matter what you claim.  All I am interested in is PROOF that climate change is in runaway mode.

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 4:39pm:

But my point remains valid.  I didn't say they were acting, I said they were not questioning what is happening. Nice try.

where's your proof?

My proof is the absence of text from the Paris  COP 21 meeting that said climate change is not happening.  Seen any?

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 6:22am:

You are supporting the position that there is a debate on this, there isn't.  There is no stalemate.  The perception that there is exist only in forums like this now.  That's because Big energy is still spending money on misinformation. The planets heads of government just met in Paris recently and they don't see any stalemate.  Obama has described climate change as a threat to US National Security. Any perception that there is a question over what is happening is an indication of the effort being placed into infiltrating social media by the Big energy lobby. Same graphs that Ajax posted appear in every forum of any size across the planet.  No coincidence, the denial machine is strong.

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 4:39pm:

But my point remains valid.  I didn't say they were acting, I said they were not questioning what is happening. Nice try.

From what you wrote they weren't even questioning the price of drinks.

'The planets heads of government just met in Paris recently and they don't see any stalemate.'

Which of course is why they decided to do absolutely nothing. Non-binding agreements, no list of industrialized and non-industrialized countries. The only agreement worth the paper it is written on is to have a meeting in Morocco in 2018.

But according to Obama this is the most important event of our time, and all they decided to do was kick the can down the road.

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 5:23pm:

My proof is the absence of text from the Paris  COP 21 meeting that said climate change is not happening.  Seen any?

serious???????


thats the best you can do???????



thats as good a surrender as I have ever heard!!


wow.

---

So the COP 21 meeting in Paris, seen any text that said climate change is not happening. 

So you got nothing?

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 6:14pm:

So the COP 21 meeting in Paris, seen any text that said climate change is not happening. So you got nothing?

So you still can't grasp the fact that this supposed worst thing happening, couldn't generate an agreement.

On to Morocco or should that be Road to Morocco? Almost as funny.

So the COP 21 meeting in Paris, seen any text that said climate change is not happening.

So you got nothing?  Still?

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 6:51pm:

So the COP 21 meeting in Paris, seen any text that said climate change is not happening. So you got nothing?  Still?

Climate is always changing. You expect disagreement on that?
;D ;D ;D ;D

I expected you to substantiate your claims, but I knew that was futile.  There is nothing credible for you to reference.

No one in the Big End of town is doubting what human produced CO2 is doing to the climate, only shills and the easily led here are doing that.

No one, not even the oil companies are arguing (publicly).  That leaves the Looney Tunes bunch in places like this.

and yet http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:56pm:

I expected you to substantiate your claims, but I knew that was futile.

What claim did I make?I have been back through the thread and can't see anything.


random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:56pm:

No one in the Big End of town is doubting what human produced CO2 is doing to the climate, only shills and the easily led here are doing that.

Funny. You're the one screaming climate change, climate change.

And as I said climate changes all the time.

So seeing as, according to you, we have anthropogenic climate change; what is the optimum temperature of the earth? Should it be uniform?

mitasol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 10:02pm:

and yet http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-ove...

You do know the climate hysterics don't like to be reminded of Climategate, don't you. ;)

mitasol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 10:02pm:

and yet http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

It's a 2010 report.  JFC.  This is 2016.

I have previously tried to make sense of it but it is just a paragraph each from everyone on the payroll.

Incomprehensible.  That your best shot?

http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/psychology/consensus/43-percent-climate-consensus-m.gif

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 10:17pm:

mitasol wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 10:02pm: and yet http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284 It's a 2010 report.  JFC.  This is 2016. I have previously tried to make sense of it but it is just a paragraph each from everyone on the payroll. Incomprehensible.  That your best shot?

See? They completely ignore Climategate.

And obviously because 2016 comes after 2010 there is an inherent statute of limitations. It doesn't matter if it's old news, only the new news works. It comes from people having a 5 minute attention span.

He sometimes also brings up 97% consensus, although recently that was updated to 98%. And then runs away and hides.

Have you ever seen the peer review system at work? Talk about incestuous, geared towards a pre-determined outcome.

mitasol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 10:42pm:

Have you ever seen the peer review system at work?

These days it is generally called Pal-reviewed.

lee wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 10:47pm:

mitasol wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 10:42pm: Have you ever seen the peer review system at work? These days it is generally called Pal-reviewed.

Exactly. I work with scientists all day and all they are worried about is where their next grant is coming from

Perhaps you are right.  Perhaps papers produced at the Heartland Institute with Exxon money is a better source of the truth.

http://i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu330/cthulhu19887/forum/facepalm/7487483a.jpg

mitasol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 11:00pm:

lee wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 10:47pm: mitasol wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 10:42pm: Have you ever seen the peer review system at work? These days it is generally called Pal-reviewed. Exactly. I work with scientists all day and all they are worried about is where their next grant is coming from

So you are in Townsville and work with scientists.  Most likely you are at James Cook or GBRMPA.

One teaches the rigor of science the other applies it while you claim it's worthless.  If you are in one of those you should get out and save yourself.

random wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 7:20am:

mitasol wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:00pm: lee wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 10:47pm: mitasol wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 10:42pm: Have you ever seen the peer review system at work? These days it is generally called Pal-reviewed. Exactly. I work with scientists all day and all they are worried about is where their next grant is coming from So you are in Townsville and work with scientists.  Most likely you are at James Cook or GBRMPA. One teaches the rigor of science the other applies it while you claim it's worthless.  If you are in one of those you should get out and save yourself.

Wrong again, shouldn't make assumptions should you?

Oh and show me where I "claim it's worthless" whatever it is....

Typical climate alarmist, attack the person who dares question you.

random wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 6:14pm:

So the COP 21 meeting in Paris, seen any text that said climate change is not happening.  So you got nothing?

Stop being fooled by these pigs that want to pass a tax on the air we breath so they can then sell air to our governments fleecing us as individuals and the nation.

The Earth's temperature fluctuates with the cycles of the sun and with the cosmic rays that reach the Earth from outer space.

You want proof look at this chart last 2000, I don't really see anything disturbing do you...???

Esper et al

http://i64.tinypic.com/2i1h8w1.png

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/yet-another-paper-demonstrates-warmer-temperatures-1000-years-ago-and-even-2000-years-ago/

Medieval warm period warmer than today.

Dahl_Jensen et al 1998
Wagner & Melles 2001
Kaplan et al 2002
Jiang et al 2002
Moore et al 2001
Grudd et al 2002
Seppa & Birks 2002
Dansgaard et al 1975
Korhola et al 2000
Naurzbaev et al 2002
Vaganov et el 1996
Briffa et al 1998
Scweingruber & Briffa 1996
Knudsen et al 2004
Grinsted et al 2006
Besonen et al 2008
Wagner et al 2008
Vare et al 2009
Norgaard-Pedersen & Mikkelsen 2009
Andresen et al 2004
Vinther et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2008
Stuiver et al 1995
Dansgaard et al 1975
Jenings & Weiner 1996
Johnsen et al 2001
Vinther et al 2010
Larsen et al 2011
Hill et al 2001
Joynt & Wolfe 2001
Hantemirov & Shiyatov 2002
Andersson et al 2003
Helama et al 2005
Mazepa 2005
Weckstrom et al 2006
Jiang et al 2007
Zabenski & Gajewski 2007
Grudd 2008
Justwan et al 2008
Scire et al 2008
Axford et al 2009
Bjune et al 2009
Cook et al 2009
Fortin & Gajewski 2010
Buntgen et al 2011
Divine et al 2011
Ran et al 2011
Velle et al 2011
D’Andrea et al 2012
Esper et al 2012

Ah still quoting Exxon stuff?  Got something credible? 

"funding climate change deniers Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 a month), James Taylor who has written a lot about Climategate through his Forbes blog, and Anthony Watts ($90,000 for 2012) to challenge "warmist science essays that counter our own," including funding "external networks (such as WUWT [Watts Up With That?] and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)."[25]

random wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 8:03am:

Ah still quoting Exxon stuff?  Got something credible?  "funding climate change deniers Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 a month), James Taylor who has written a lot about Climategate through his Forbes blog, and Anthony Watts ($90,000 for 2012) to challenge "warmist science essays that counter our own," including funding "external networks (such as WUWT [Watts Up With That?] and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)."[25]

You sir are a tool.

I suppose all those papers where funded by exxon too...!!!

CORK HEAD...... :o

http://i64.tinypic.com/2rosvpw.jpg

From you ... I'll take that as a complement.

https://49.media.tumblr.com/a69ea98949815aff6b1e857613dbb574/tumblr_ny31v0sLF41rzjjhho1_400.gif

random wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 8:03am:

Ah still quoting Exxon stuff?  Got something credible?  "funding climate change deniers Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 a month), James Taylor who has written a lot about Climategate through his Forbes blog, and Anthony Watts ($90,000 for 2012) to challenge "warmist science essays that counter our own," including funding "external networks (such as WUWT [Watts Up With That?] and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)."[25]

and yet

Climate Change Business Journal estimates the Climate Change Industry is a $1.5 Trillion dollar escapade, which means four billion dollars a day is spent on our quest to change the climate.

Most industries this size exist because they produce something the market wants. They worry that competitors might chip into their market share, but they don’t worry that the market might disappear overnight. Normal industries fear that a “bad” political outcome might reduce profits by ten or twenty percent, and sometimes they donate “both ways”. But the climate industry has literally a trillion on the table that depends on big-government policy and election outcomes. They are always one prime-time documentary away from disaster. What if the public saw that thermometers were next to industrial exhaust vents? What if they learned that the climate models are unskilled, broken, and non-functional, or that 28 million weather balloons show carbon reduction is fruitless pursuit? What if they knew historic records are wildly adjusted to make the current weather look warmer than it would?

if you have a dodgy theory, set up a dependent industry fast, and sit back while they lobby and push your theory for you.

mitasol wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 8:57am:

random wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 8:03am: Ah still quoting Exxon stuff?  Got something credible?  "funding climate change deniers Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 a month), James Taylor who has written a lot about Climategate through his Forbes blog, and Anthony Watts ($90,000 for 2012) to challenge "warmist science essays that counter our own," including funding "external networks (such as WUWT [Watts Up With That?] and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)."[25] and yet Climate Change Business Journal estimates the Climate Change Industry is a $1.5 Trillion dollar escapade, which means four billion dollars a day is spent on our quest to change the climate. Most industries this size exist because they produce something the market wants. They worry that competitors might chip into their market share, but they don’t worry that the market might disappear overnight. Normal industries fear that a “bad” political outcome might reduce profits by ten or twenty percent, and sometimes they donate “both ways”. But the climate industry has literally a trillion on the table that depends on big-government policy and election outcomes. They are always one prime-time documentary away from disaster. What if the public saw that thermometers were next to industrial exhaust vents? What if they learned that the climate models are unskilled, broken, and non-functional, or that 28 million weather balloons show carbon reduction is fruitless pursuit? What if they knew historic records are wildly adjusted to make the current weather look warmer than it would? if you have a dodgy theory, set up a dependent industry fast, and sit back while they lobby and push your theory for you.

It's hard to know where to start with just how dumb that quote is.  You didn't reference it but it's all over the denial-sphere to be repeated by sheeple.  You are Exhibit A in the proof of that.

But let's just for fun pick one or two parts of it to explore. 

How about ...

1. "What if they learned that the climate models are unskilled,"

Is that even possible?  Did a school child write that?

2. "[i] ... or that 28 million weather balloons show carbon reduction is fruitless pursuit"[/i]

WTF does that even mean?  Please send links to help me out with that one.   ::)

So you see sheeple repeat this meaningless shite because that's all there is.  No science no facts, no evidence of thought.

lee wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 10:04pm:

random wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:56pm: I expected you to substantiate your claims, but I knew that was futile. What claim did I make?I have been back through the thread and can't see anything. random wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:56pm: No one in the Big End of town is doubting what human produced CO2 is doing to the climate, only shills and the easily led here are doing that. Funny. You're the one screaming climate change, climate change. And as I said climate changes all the time. So seeing as, according to you, we have anthropogenic climate change; what is the optimum temperature of the earth? Should it be uniform?

Talk about people who have nothing. Your name is top of the list.

Go back and hide behind nanny's skirts.

random wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 9:34am:

mitasol wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 8:57am: random wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 8:03am: Ah still quoting Exxon stuff?  Got something credible?  "funding climate change deniers Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 a month), James Taylor who has written a lot about Climategate through his Forbes blog, and Anthony Watts ($90,000 for 2012) to challenge "warmist science essays that counter our own," including funding "external networks (such as WUWT [Watts Up With That?] and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)."[25] and yet Climate Change Business Journal estimates the Climate Change Industry is a $1.5 Trillion dollar escapade, which means four billion dollars a day is spent on our quest to change the climate. Most industries this size exist because they produce something the market wants. They worry that competitors might chip into their market share, but they don’t worry that the market might disappear overnight. Normal industries fear that a “bad” political outcome might reduce profits by ten or twenty percent, and sometimes they donate “both ways”. But the climate industry has literally a trillion on the table that depends on big-government policy and election outcomes. They are always one prime-time documentary away from disaster. What if the public saw that thermometers were next to industrial exhaust vents? What if they learned that the climate models are unskilled, broken, and non-functional, or that 28 million weather balloons show carbon reduction is fruitless pursuit? What if they knew historic records are wildly adjusted to make the current weather look warmer than it would? if you have a dodgy theory, set up a dependent industry fast, and sit back while they lobby and push your theory for you. It's hard to know where to start with just how dumb that quote is.  You didn't reference it but it's all over the denial-sphere to be repeated by sheeple.  You are Exhibit A in the proof of that. But let's just for fun pick one or two parts of it to explore.  How about ... 1. "What if they learned that the climate models are unskilled," Is that even possible?  Did a school child write that? 2. "[i] ... or that 28 million weather balloons show carbon reduction is fruitless pursuit"[/i] WTF does that even mean?  Please send links to help me out with that one.   ::) So you see sheeple repeat this meaningless shite because that's all there is.  No science no facts, no evidence of thought.

Again you missed the entire point of the post - note where it says "what if...." But like most climate alarmists you cherry pick to suit yourself.

Climate changes, science is ever changing, it is never "settled". The only ones who want the science settled are generally lefties and earthians, when it suits their socialist agendas.

random wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 9:34am:

But let's just for fun pick one or two parts of it to explore.  How about ... 1. "What if they learned that the climate models are unskilled," Is that even possible?  Did a school child write that?

Where have you been for the last 25 years, here are the IPCC predictions vs real life obsevations.

http://i67.tinypic.com/i6lcfb.png

Now when your theory backed up by your calculations isn't realised after an observation period what does that tell you.

THAT YOU ARE WRONG...back to the drawing board.

Its dickwads like yourself these pigs we call the oligarchy are turning into foot soldiers to pass a tax on the air we breath.

I'll tell you one thing though, once this $2 or $1.5 trillion dollar carbon derivatives market is up and running, curbing manmade CO2 emissions will be the last thing on the oligarchies mind, and you my friend will be left with your cock in your hands.


random wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 9:34am:

2. "[i] ... or that 28 million weather balloons show carbon reduction is fruitless pursuit"[/i] WTF does that even mean?  Please send links to help me out with that one.   ::)

Your kidding right you don't know that thousands of weather balloons go up into our atmosphere every day to measure temperature.

Not to mention the satellite data we receive.

Guess what both have failed to find the hot spot in the tropopause that appears in the IPCC and other alarmist computer models.

That's why they started saying that this missing heat has gone into the oceans.

WRONG again... we have the Argo system deployed around the world measuring temperature in the oceans and it hasn't detected this missing heat.

Better get over to sceptical science blog run by a cartoonist with ties to Al Gore so they can teach you how to combat these facts, they may even let you become an algorian.

http://i64.tinypic.com/hral1w.gif

random wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 9:34am:

1. "What if they learned that the climate models are unskilled," Is that even possible?  Did a school child write that?

Please provide a link to show climate models are skilled

lee wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 12:34pm:

random wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 9:34am: 1. "What if they learned that the climate models are unskilled," Is that even possible?  Did a school child write that? Please provide a link to show climate models are skilled

Lazy bastard. Read it yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 2:04pm:

Lazy bastard. Read it yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

Nothing there about how skilled/unskilled they are.

Seeing as the IPCC AR5 in chapter 9 had to rely on "expert judgment" rather than model output, it would seem they are unskilled. Perhaps they need upskilling?

lee wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 3:26pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 2:04pm: Lazy bastard. Read it yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model Nothing there about how skilled/unskilled they are. Seeing as the IPCC AR5 in chapter 9 had to rely on "expert judgment" rather than model output, it would seem they are unskilled. Perhaps they need upskilling?

Very often the output from models, algorithms, computers and their programs is data and it needs the interpretation of a human mind to turn it into information.

People are not recruited from the nearest bar for this type of work.

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 3:46pm:

lee wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 3:26pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 2:04pm: Lazy bastard. Read it yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model Nothing there about how skilled/unskilled they are. Seeing as the IPCC AR5 in chapter 9 had to rely on "expert judgment" rather than model output, it would seem they are unskilled. Perhaps they need upskilling? Very often the output from models, algorithms, computers and their programs is data and it needs the interpretation of a human mind to turn it into information. People are not recruited from the nearest bar for this type of work.

The IPCC models have been proven wrong by observation, they predicted what would happen according to their models and they have got it wrong over estimating how hot it would be by the end of the century.

If you do not acknowledge this then you are just following them blindly.

Do you want to be taxed on misinformation...???

http://i68.tinypic.com/2qmm5oz.png

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 3:46pm:

Very often the output from models, algorithms, computers and their programs is data and it needs the interpretation of a human mind to turn it into information. People are not recruited from the nearest bar for this type of work.

When the climate models use "forcings", the output cannot be data.  It is speculation based on the hope that all of the "forcings" are true.

'We summarize here forcing datasets used in GISS global climate models over the years. Note that the forcings are estimates that may be revised as new information or better understandings of the source data become available.'

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

lee wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 4:13pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 3:46pm: Very often the output from models, algorithms, computers and their programs is data and it needs the interpretation of a human mind to turn it into information. People are not recruited from the nearest bar for this type of work. When the climate models use "forcings", the output cannot be data.  It is speculation based on the hope that all of the "forcings" are true. 'We summarize here forcing datasets used in GISS global climate models over the years. Note that the forcings are estimates that may be revised as new information or better understandings of the source data become available.' http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

Maybe its like constipation. If you don't force it the data is trapped and brutalized in endless cycles of computations.

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 4:44pm:

Maybe its like constipation. If you don't force it the data is trapped and brutalized in endless cycles of computations.

For that to happen, there would have to be data in the first place.

lee wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 12:34pm:

random wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 9:34am: 1. "What if they learned that the climate models are unskilled," Is that even possible?  Did a school child write that? Please provide a link to show climate models are skilled

What are you 12 and bottom of the class in English?  Models cannot have skills.  Anyone who does not think this is funny is not capable of intelligent discourse.   ::)

random wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 6:53pm:

What are you 12 and bottom of the class in English?  Models cannot have skills.  Anyone who does not think this is funny is not capable of intelligent discourse

Engineering models are wonderfully skilful. Don't you think engineering models of bridges, aeroplanes etc work really well? They have some predictive quality. If you put in rubbish figures, they will generally be outside spec, and tell you this bird won't fly. I guess they don't use forcings.

Please tell me what 'skills' these climate models have?

random wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 7:30pm:

Please tell me what 'skills' these climate models have?

These climate models have no skills, and that is precisely the problem.

And then they use these climate models, from WG1, to try to convince people that the outputs provide some insight into the future. Not only for WG1 but also WG2 and WG3.

Blah blah fcukin blah.

random wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 10:10pm:

Blah blah fcukin blah.

When you're trying to defend the Anthropogenic Global Warming Religion who's armour is so full of holes, that's about all you can say.....!!!!!

Pray to St. Gore for enlightenment.

http://i67.tinypic.com/14mdeop.png

Ajax wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 7:59am:

random wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 10:10pm: Blah blah fcukin blah. When you're trying to defend the Anthropogenic Global Warming Religion who's armour is so full of holes, that's about all you can say.....!!!!! Pray to St. Gore for enlightenment.

That's what it was.  Just blah. 

No serious intent to discuss or debate, just critical 'filler'.  Just words intended to sow doubt for sheeple who do not know any better.

random wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:38am:

Ajax wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 7:59am: random wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 10:10pm: Blah blah fcukin blah. When you're trying to defend the Anthropogenic Global Warming Religion who's armour is so full of holes, that's about all you can say.....!!!!! Pray to St. Gore for enlightenment. That's what it was.  Just blah.  No serious intent to discuss or debate, just critical 'filler'.  Just words intended to sow doubt for sheeple who do not know any better.

Ah, well. As you are so enlightened, please enlighten us.

What skills do climate models have?

Sun Tzu gave us an answer, he thinks climate models have skills. Is he right or wrong?

As you clearly don't consider yourself a 'sheeple', you must have an answer.

A Model cannot have a skill.  It has capabilities and functions.  It either performs as designed or it does not.  Skills exists at different levels of the same function.  e.g. skill at filleting a fish.

I do not place much stock in any of the models to accurately predict the future.

Climate models are under continuous development and are often used by climate change deniers to denigrate the technicians and scientists who develop them.   I look at the output of them, then look at the recorded climate change to date and form my own conclusions.  I have concluded that the models are understating nearly all climate change.  This is itself something understandable because we model based on the combination of past performance and the laws of thermodynamics.  Past performance is not a great indicator of the future.

We all do not have to be great scientists to look at the increasing slope on a line of CO2 recordings, look at the bugger all being done to reduce it, and conclude that it will continue to increase.  That combined with the laws of physics provides all I need to form a personal opinion.

But I do not publish them anywhere or here because my personal ramblings are of no consequence to science, they are just opinions no mater how well considered. 

The published papers, the IPCC stuff and the Gbs of other credible information is close enough for me.  Closer than that produced by shill institutes.

random wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:19pm:

We all do not have to be great scientists to look at the increasing slope on a line of CO2 recordings,

But we do have to be great scientists to look at the temperature slope?

You do realise climate modellers are not climate scientists, don't you?

random wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:19pm:

A Model cannot have a skill.  It has capabilities and functions.  It either performs as designed or it does not.  Skills exists at different levels of the same function.  e.g. skill at filleting a fish. I do not place much stock in any of the models.  Climate models are under continuous development and are often used by climate change deniers to denigrate the technicians and scientists who develop them.   I look at the output of them, then look at the recorded climate change to date and form my own conclusions.  I have concluded that the models are understating nearly all climate change.  This is itself something understandable because we model based on the combination of past performance and the laws of thermodynamics.  Past performance is not a great indicator of the future. We all do not have to be great scientists to look at the increasing slope on a line of CO2 recordings, look at the bugger all being done to reduce it, and conclude that it will continue to increase.  That combined with the laws of physics provides all I need to form a personal opinion. But I do not publish them anywhere or here because my personal ramblings are of no consequence to science, they are just opinions no mater how well considered.  The published papers, the IPCC stuff and the Gbs of other credible information is close enough for me.  Closer than that produced by shill institutes.

The highlighted portion is as good a repudiation of your intelligence as anything you could otherwise say. The climate models have predicted many things and gotten every single one wrong by stellar margins. They predicted continuous temperature rises and instead we have had near plateaued temperatures for near 20 years. They predicted massive melting of the poles and instead, they are now growing again. They predicted 6M rises in  sea level by 2020. So far it is be 0.1M.

They are not only dead wrong but have OVERSTATED climate change by truly massive proportions.  Your argument to the contrary is ridiculous and exposes you as an ideologue rather than a think of any kind.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:33pm:

random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:19pm: A Model cannot have a skill.  It has capabilities and functions.  It either performs as designed or it does not.  Skills exists at different levels of the same function.  e.g. skill at filleting a fish. I do not place much stock in any of the models.  Climate models are under continuous development and are often used by climate change deniers to denigrate the technicians and scientists who develop them.   I look at the output of them, then look at the recorded climate change to date and form my own conclusions.  I have concluded that the models are understating nearly all climate change.  This is itself something understandable because we model based on the combination of past performance and the laws of thermodynamics.  Past performance is not a great indicator of the future. We all do not have to be great scientists to look at the increasing slope on a line of CO2 recordings, look at the bugger all being done to reduce it, and conclude that it will continue to increase.  That combined with the laws of physics provides all I need to form a personal opinion. But I do not publish them anywhere or here because my personal ramblings are of no consequence to science, they are just opinions no mater how well considered.  The published papers, the IPCC stuff and the Gbs of other credible information is close enough for me.  Closer than that produced by shill institutes. The highlighted portion is as good a repudiation of your intelligence as anything you could otherwise say. The climate models have predicted many things and gotten every single one wrong by stellar margins. They predicted continuous temperature rises and instead we have had near plateaued temperatures for near 20 years. They predicted massive melting of the poles and instead, they are now growing again. They predicted 6M rises in  sea level by 2020. So far it is be 0.1M. They are not only dead wrong but have OVERSTATED climate change by truly massive proportions.  Your argument to the contrary is ridiculous and exposes you as an ideologue rather than a think of any kind.

The climate models have been more accurate than your statements.  Please send links supporting your claims of 0.1m sea level rise and plateauing temperatures as they are contrary to the records I have seen from BoM, NASA and NOAA.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

I chose to rely on them, than you, some anonymous poster on the interweb.

lee wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:29pm:

You do realise climate modellers are not climate scientists, don't you?

Don't start with that Popplerian crap that you cut and pasted from some blog.

Climatologists develop Climate Models. These include Atmospheric physicists and oceanographic research scientists to give two examples, Maybe you should go and picket the UNSW CCRC and try telling them what Watts told you.
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/

Quote:

UNSW CCRC is a multi-disciplinary research centre comprising one of the largest university research facilities of its kind in Australia, administered within the School of BEES in the Faculty of Science. CCRC houses research expertise in the key areas of Earth's climate: atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial processes. We apply basic scientific principles to pressing questions on climate dynamics, global climate change, and extremes of weather and climate.

Armchair denialists live in a strange world where they think that there is a great worldwide plot by scientists to defraud governments by telling them lies in order to obtain research funds. (I presume to find out the truth.)

Go figure.

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:46pm:

lee wrote Today at 12:29pm: You do realise climate modellers are not climate scientists, don't you? Don't start with that Popplerian crap that you cut and pasted from some blog. Climatologists develop Climate Models. These include Atmospheric physicists and oceanographic research scientists to give two examples, Maybe you should go and picket the UNSW CCRC and try telling them what Watts told you. http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/ Quote: UNSW CCRC is a multi-disciplinary research centre comprising one of the largest university research facilities of its kind in Australia, administered within the School of BEES in the Faculty of Science. CCRC houses research expertise in the key areas of Earth's climate: atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial processes. We apply basic scientific principles to pressing questions on climate dynamics, global climate change, and extremes of weather and climate.

Ahh, the Ship of Fools establishment.

Mawson got to Cape Denison in a wooden boat. Chris Turney on the other hand got stuck in the 'thinning ice', in a steel ship.

lee wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 1:05pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:46pm: lee wrote Today at 12:29pm: You do realise climate modellers are not climate scientists, don't you? Don't start with that Popplerian crap that you cut and pasted from some blog. Climatologists develop Climate Models. These include Atmospheric physicists and oceanographic research scientists to give two examples, Maybe you should go and picket the UNSW CCRC and try telling them what Watts told you. http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/ Quote: UNSW CCRC is a multi-disciplinary research centre comprising one of the largest university research facilities of its kind in Australia, administered within the School of BEES in the Faculty of Science. CCRC houses research expertise in the key areas of Earth's climate: atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial processes. We apply basic scientific principles to pressing questions on climate dynamics, global climate change, and extremes of weather and climate. Are the Ship of Fools establishment. Mawson got to Cape Denison in a wooden boat. Chris Turney on the other hand got stuck in the 'thinning ice', in a steel ship.

Denizen lee is skating on thin ice.

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 1:29pm:

Denizen lee is skating on thin ice.

Then you shouldn't have any trouble creating a hole. ;)

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:46pm:

lee wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:29pm: You do realise climate modellers are not climate scientists, don't you? Don't start with that Popplerian crap that you cut and pasted from some blog. Climatologists develop Climate Models. These include Atmospheric physicists and oceanographic research scientists to give two examples, Maybe you should go and picket the UNSW CCRC and try telling them what Watts told you. http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/ Quote: UNSW CCRC is a multi-disciplinary research centre comprising one of the largest university research facilities of its kind in Australia, administered within the School of BEES in the Faculty of Science. CCRC houses research expertise in the key areas of Earth's climate: atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial processes. We apply basic scientific principles to pressing questions on climate dynamics, global climate change, and extremes of weather and climate. Armchair denialists live in a strange world where they think that there is a great worldwide plot by scientists to defraud governments by telling them lies in order to obtain research funds. (I presume to find out the truth.) Go figure.

John are your serious...!!!!

You don't think research institutions would jump aboard the gravy train that calls itself Anthropogenic Global Warming Science to replenish their funds and keep their jobs.

Just the bank of America handed out 50 million dollars.

If you seriously think institutions that need funding wouldn't put their hand out when all they have to say is yes human Co2 emissions are the cause, then you are a very naïve person indeed.

That's what leads to statement with suffixes 
"where only 38% sure".

Ajax wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 1:47pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:46pm: lee wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:29pm: You do realise climate modellers are not climate scientists, don't you? Don't start with that Popplerian crap that you cut and pasted from some blog. Climatologists develop Climate Models. These include Atmospheric physicists and oceanographic research scientists to give two examples, Maybe you should go and picket the UNSW CCRC and try telling them what Watts told you. http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/ Quote: UNSW CCRC is a multi-disciplinary research centre comprising one of the largest university research facilities of its kind in Australia, administered within the School of BEES in the Faculty of Science. CCRC houses research expertise in the key areas of Earth's climate: atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial processes. We apply basic scientific principles to pressing questions on climate dynamics, global climate change, and extremes of weather and climate. Armchair denialists live in a strange world where they think that there is a great worldwide plot by scientists to defraud governments by telling them lies in order to obtain research funds. (I presume to find out the truth.) Go figure. John are your serious...!!!! You don't think research institutions would jump aboard the gravy train that calls itself Anthropogenic Global Warming Science to replenish their funds and keep their jobs. Just the bank of America handed out 50 million dollars. If you seriously think institutions that need funding wouldn't put their hand out when all they have to say is yes human Co2 emissions are the cause, then you are a very naïve person indeed. That's what leads to statement with suffixes  "where only 38% sure".

The denialist's response:

"We're not scientists but ...".

Hey Sun_tzu the models are wrong, see the graph below....case closed.

http://i63.tinypic.com/2i7aele.png

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:46pm:

Climatologists develop Climate Models.

How many scientists are there with appropriate programming skills?

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 1:49pm:

The denialist's response: "We're not scientists but ...".

Just pointing out the truth.

CO2 and temperature don't correlate never have in the past and probably never will in the future.

lee wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 1:50pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:46pm: Climatologists develop Climate Models. How many scientists are there with appropriate programming skills?

In Australia? None. Australia is not at the forefront of climatology.

She'll be right mate.

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 1:54pm:

lee wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 1:50pm: John_Taverner wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:46pm: Climatologists develop Climate Models. How many scientists are there with appropriate programming skills? In Australia? None. Australia is not at the forefront of climatology. She'll be right mate.

'After decades griping about the poor coding skills of scientists he knew, Wilson decided to see how widespread the problem was. In 2008, he and his colleagues conducted an online survey of almost 2,000 researchers, from students to senior academics, who were working with computers in a range of sciences. What he found was worse than he had anticipated1 (see 'Scientists and their software'). "There are terrifying statistics showing that almost all of what scientists know about coding is self-taught," says Wilson. "They just don't know how bad they are." '

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101013/full/467775a.html

So the problem is not merely within Australia.

I worked in IT.  The norm was for those needing code developed got specialists to do it.   Medicos, climatologists etc apply for funds to start projects to deliver software to the specs they require.  Seriously you guys have . no .smacking . idea.

Did they do a survey on how many professional code developers can do climate science?

I observe that denialists have developed a higher level of sensitivity to CO₂ than the CO₂ sensitivity of climate.

random wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 4:03pm:

I worked in IT.  The norm was for those needing code developed got specialists to do it.   Medicos, climatologists etc apply for funds to start projects to deliver software to the specs they require.  Seriously you guys have . no .smacking . idea. Did they do a survey on how many professional code developers can do climate science?

You disagree with Nature magazine. The pro-warming magazine? Take it up with them.

Don't shoot the messenger.

random wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:43pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:33pm: random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:19pm: A Model cannot have a skill.  It has capabilities and functions.  It either performs as designed or it does not.  Skills exists at different levels of the same function.  e.g. skill at filleting a fish. I do not place much stock in any of the models.  Climate models are under continuous development and are often used by climate change deniers to denigrate the technicians and scientists who develop them.   I look at the output of them, then look at the recorded climate change to date and form my own conclusions.  I have concluded that the models are understating nearly all climate change.  This is itself something understandable because we model based on the combination of past performance and the laws of thermodynamics.  Past performance is not a great indicator of the future. We all do not have to be great scientists to look at the increasing slope on a line of CO2 recordings, look at the bugger all being done to reduce it, and conclude that it will continue to increase.  That combined with the laws of physics provides all I need to form a personal opinion. But I do not publish them anywhere or here because my personal ramblings are of no consequence to science, they are just opinions no mater how well considered.  The published papers, the IPCC stuff and the Gbs of other credible information is close enough for me.  Closer than that produced by shill institutes. The highlighted portion is as good a repudiation of your intelligence as anything you could otherwise say. The climate models have predicted many things and gotten every single one wrong by stellar margins. They predicted continuous temperature rises and instead we have had near plateaued temperatures for near 20 years. They predicted massive melting of the poles and instead, they are now growing again. They predicted 6M rises in  sea level by 2020. So far it is be 0.1M. They are not only dead wrong but have OVERSTATED climate change by truly massive proportions.  Your argument to the contrary is ridiculous and exposes you as an ideologue rather than a think of any kind. The climate models have been more accurate than your statements.  Please send links supporting your claims of 0.1m sea level rise and plateauing temperatures as they are contrary to the records I have seen from BoM, NASA and NOAA. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html I chose to rely on them, than you, some anonymous poster on the interweb.

By pretending that temperatures are continuing to rise as per the models and not plateaued according to the ACTUAL measurements, you reveal yourself to be a dolt who is incapable of independent thought. You do realise that the NOAA reinterpretation of data has been strongly criticised by warmists and non-warmists alike? BoM for example has refused to tell anyone how they came across their 'homogenised data' which in spectular form took two temperature recordings 500kms apart and 'homogenised' them.  In less technical terms it is called 'fraudulent science'.

What actual measurements?  Australia is getting hotter.

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/fig3.png

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/fig10.png

random wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 5:29pm:

What actual measurements?  Australia is getting hotter.

You don't know about BoM's homogenisation of data?

Her's what the report into BoM;s adjustments said.

'The Forum noted that the extent to which the development of the ACORN-SAT dataset from the raw data could be automated was likely to be limited, and that the process might better be described as a supervised process in which the roles of metadata and other information required some level of expertise and operator intervention. The Forum investigated the nature of the operator intervention required and the bases on which such decisions are made and concluded that very detailed instructions from the Bureau are likely to be necessary for an end-user who wishes to reproduce the ACORN-SAT findings. Some such details are provided in Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) technical reports (e.g. use of 40 best-correlated sites for adjustments, thresholds for adjustment, and so on); however, the Forum concluded that it is likely to remain the case that several choices within the adjustment process remain a matter of expert judgment and appropriate disciplinary knowledge. '

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2015_TAF_report.pdf

So the process is not automated and cannot be automated. It requires "expert judgment" to adjust the temperatures. That means there can be no quality control because there is no written methodology on how results were achieved.

And you put faith in Australia's temperatures? Is that because they're scientists? That is an appeal to authority.

And back to the zettajoules again?

Lying pricks those scientists.  It's a wonder we have the internet at all.

I'm gunna start believing anonymous posters on the interweb.

random wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 7:52pm:

Lying pricks those scientists.  It's a wonder we have the internet at all. I'm gunna start believing anonymous posters on the interweb.

You don't believe the report, colour me surprised. Even though the scientists explained their method to the enquiry.

lee wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:16pm:

random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 7:52pm: Lying pricks those scientists.  It's a wonder we have the internet at all. I'm gunna start believing anonymous posters on the interweb. . You don't believe the report, colour me surprised. Even though the scientists explained their method to the enquiry.

You missed the point.  If you start trashing the most credible source of information, you then have to consider where you go to for your source of truth.

All sources of information are imperfect, choose your degree of imperfection.  I'll go with BoM, NOAA and NASA thanks

random wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 5:29pm:

What actual measurements?  Australia is getting hotter. http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/fig3.png http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/fig10.png

No one is denying that the whole world is getting warmer, what we're denying is that its all due to man's emissions of CO2.

http://i67.tinypic.com/6efzu1.jpg

http://www.waclimate.net/year-book-csir.html



Quote:

Historic documents show 30-40%* of Australia’s warming trend is due to “adjustments” There was a time back in 1933 when the CSIRO was called CSIR and meteorologists figured that with 74 years of weather data on Australia, they really ought to publish a serious document collating all the monthly averages at hundreds of weather stations around Australia. Little did they know that years later, despite their best efforts, much of the same data would be forgotten and unused or would be adjusted, decades after the fact, and sometimes by as much as one or two degrees. Twenty years later The Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics would publish an Official Year Book of Australia which included the mean temperature readings from 1911 to 1940 at 44 locations. Chris Gillham has spent months poring over both these historic datasets, as well as the BoM’s Climate Data Online (CDO) which has the recent temperatures at these old stations. He also compares these old records to the new versions in the BOM’s all new, all marvelous, best quality ACORN dataset. He has published all the results and tables comparing CDO, CSIR and Year Book versions. He analyzes them in many ways – sometimes by looking at small subsets or large groups of the 226 CSIR stations. But it doesn’t much matter which way the data is grouped, the results always show that the historic records had warmer average temperatures before they were adjusted and put into the modern ACORN dataset. The adjustments cool historic averages by around 0.4 degrees, which sounds small, but the entire extent of a century of warming is only 0.9 degrees C. So the adjustments themselves are the source of almost half of the warming trend. The big question then is whether the adjustments are necessary. If the old measurements were accurate as is, Australia has only warmed by half a degree. In the 44 stations listed in the Year Book from 1911-1940, the maxima at the same sites is now about half a degree warmer in the new millenia. The minima are about the same. Remember that these sites from 1911-1940 were all recorded with modern Stevenson Screen equipment.  Furthermore, since that era the biggest change in those sites has been from the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect as the towns and cities grew up around the sites. In some places this effect may already have been warming those thermometers in the first half of the last century, but in others UHI can make 5 to 7 degrees difference. If Australian thermometers are recording half a degree higher than they were 70 – 100 years ago, we have to ask how much of that warming is the UHI effect? Common sense would suggest that if these older stations need any correction, it should be upward rather than downward to compensate for the modern increase in concrete, buildings and roads. Alternatively, to compare old readings in unpopulated areas with modern ones, we would think the modern temperatures should be adjusted down, rather than the older ones. Read the rest here http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/historic-documents-show-half-of-australias-warming-trend-is-due-to-adjustments/

random wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:27pm:

You missed the point.  If you start trashing the most credible source of information, you then have to consider where you go to for your source of truth.

When you can't verify the work of BoM, it is not credible.

Ajax wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:43pm:

random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:29pm: What actual measurements?  Australia is getting hotter. http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/fig3.png http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/fig10.png No one is denying that the whole world is getting warmer, what we're denying is that its all due to man's emissions of CO2. Read the rest here http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/historic-documents-show-half-of-australias-warming-trend-is-due-to-adjustments/[/size]

[/quote]

YHTBFK.  jnova has to be the most obviously bias Big Energy funded site on the planet.  I refuse to click on it anymore.  I don't know how the funders continue supporting something so blatant.

Got anything credible?

lee wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:51pm:

random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 8:27pm: You missed the point.  If you start trashing the most credible source of information, you then have to consider where you go to for your source of truth. When you can't verify the work of BoM, it is not credible.

Oh really.  So you should be able to point us at something that is credible and we can verify. 

Waiting ....

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 6:31am:

Ajax wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:43pm: random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:29pm: What actual measurements?  Australia is getting hotter. http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/fig3.png http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/fig10.png No one is denying that the whole world is getting warmer, what we're denying is that its all due to man's emissions of CO2. Read the rest here http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/historic-documents-show-half-of-australias-warming-trend-is-due-to-adjustments/[/size]

Quote:

YHTBFK.  jnova has to be the most obviously bias Big Energy funded site on the planet.  I refuse to click on it anymore.  I don't know how the funders continue supporting something so blatant. Got anything credible?

Got any evidence of who has funded the site, or is this just another climate alarmist attack on anyone who dares to question their mantra?


Seems that people who live in glass houses.....https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/08/big-green-hypocrites/

Joanne Nova is a self-proclaimed climate change skeptic who declares that science has disproved the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Nova's most notable work in the area of climate change is the controversial document, “The Skeptic's Handbook.”

Although Joanne Nova has not published any research in peer-reviewed journals, she is often presented as an expert in the area of climate science.  For example, Fred Singer's Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) describes Joanne Nova as holding a PhD in meteorology.

After graduation, Nova joined the Shell Questacon Science Circus, a Shell-sponsored program that employs university students to travel around Australia teaching interactive science programs to children.

December, 2014

Joanne Nova is a contributor to the book Climate Change: The Facts published by the Institute of Public Affairs and featuring “22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate.” The Institute of Public Affairs, while not revealing most of its funders, is known to have received funding from mining magnate Gina Rinehart and at least one major tobacco company.  [9]

Nova was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change where she is listed as one of several specialists on the issue of global warming. [5]

Heartland is an Exxon funded organisation.  Nova is a Big Energy shill for hire.  An Oil and Coal climate change denial prostitute.

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 6:33am:

lee wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:51pm: random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 8:27pm: You missed the point.  If you start trashing the most credible source of information, you then have to consider where you go to for your source of truth. When you can't verify the work of BoM, it is not credible. Oh really.  So you should be able to point us at something that is credible and we can verify.  Waiting ....

http://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab187/rocker_4u/Unnamedsdfsfsdfsd.gif

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 7:56am:

Joanne Nova is a self-proclaimed climate change skeptic who declares that science has disproved the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Nova's most notable work in the area of climate change is the controversial document, “The Skeptic's Handbook.” Although Joanne Nova has not published any research in peer-reviewed journals, she is often presented as an expert in the area of climate science.  For example, Fred Singer's Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) describes Joanne Nova as holding a PhD in meteorology. After graduation, Nova joined the Shell Questacon Science Circus, a Shell-sponsored program that employs university students to travel around Australia teaching interactive science programs to children. December, 2014 Joanne Nova is a contributor to the book Climate Change: The Facts published by the Institute of Public Affairs and featuring “22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate.” The Institute of Public Affairs, while not revealing most of its funders, is known to have received funding from mining magnate Gina Rinehart and at least one major tobacco company.  [9] Nova was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change where she is listed as one of several specialists on the issue of global warming. [5] Heartland is an Exxon funded organisation.  Nova is a Big Energy shill for hire.  An Oil and Coal climate change denial prostitute.

So she is not directly funded by big energy. You are merely claiming "guilt" by association. Interesting, given the other link that I posted.

As opposed to the AIMS Climate Scientist currently facing fraud charges in Townsville http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/climate-scientist-accused-of-employer-rort/story-fnjfzs4b-1227532573922

JoNova is a paid shill, nothing credible comes outta there.   If you can help by showing where her pay and travel expenses come from please send details.

She should have a real hard look at herself, Karma is a bitch.

So what did the Townsville guy do exactly?   Whatever it was, how does that relate to Climate Change?

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 8:06am:

random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:33am: lee wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:51pm: random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 8:27pm: You missed the point.  If you start trashing the most credible source of information, you then have to consider where you go to for your source of truth. When you can't verify the work of BoM, it is not credible. Oh really.  So you should be able to point us at something that is credible and we can verify.  Waiting .... http://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab187/rocker_4u/Unnamedsdfsfsdfsd.gif

Sorry, I didn't realise I was operating on your time frame.

You are the one who brought up "the most credible source of information". So if BoM is so credible, why can't the homogenisation of temperatures be replicated? The answer is that you cannot replicate a human thought.. So the homogenisation record of BoM can't be replicated, that is the ACORN-SAT "data", on which Australia's warming relies.

Can't be verified (no records of how adjustments were derived), can't be replicated (as indicated above), can't be science.

If you can't see that, then you suffer from cognitive dissonance; and can't be helped.

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 9:12am:

JoNova is a paid shill, nothing credible comes outta there.   If you can help by showing where her pay and travel expenses come from please send details.

You are the one making the claim. Show us where and what she was paid and paid for.

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 7:56am:

Although Joanne Nova has not published any research in peer-reviewed journals, she is often presented as an expert in the area of climate science.  For example, Fred Singer's Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) describes Joanne Nova as holding a PhD in meteorology.

Let's see a short list of climate scientists-

Kevin Trenberth - Meteorologist
Michael E Mann - Geology and Geophysics

Nope neither are Climate Scientists.

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 7:56am:

Joanne Nova is a contributor to the book Climate Change: The Facts published by the Institute of Public Affairs and featuring “22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate.” The Institute of Public Affairs, while not revealing most of its funders, is known to have received funding from mining magnate Gina Rinehart and at least one major tobacco company.  [9] Nova was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change where she is listed as one of several specialists on the issue of global warming. [5] Heartland is an Exxon funded organisation.  Nova is a Big Energy shill for hire.  An Oil and Coal climate change denial prostitute.

So Gina Rinehart is a climate denier? First time I have seen her name on the list. Source please.

Yes you showed us previously how Heartland was paid less than $50,000, if I recall correctly. But perhaps you can update. What would $50k purchase? A computer system perhaps?  Seeing as you worked in IT, perhaps you can tell us how big a system it would buy?

And Exxon bought Heartland's undying love for that amount? :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 10:28am:

random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 7:56am: Joanne Nova is a contributor to the book Climate Change: The Facts published by the Institute of Public Affairs and featuring “22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate.” The Institute of Public Affairs, while not revealing most of its funders, is known to have received funding from mining magnate Gina Rinehart and at least one major tobacco company.  [9] Nova was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change where she is listed as one of several specialists on the issue of global warming. [5] Heartland is an Exxon funded organisation.  Nova is a Big Energy shill for hire.  An Oil and Coal climate change denial prostitute. So Gina Rinehart is a climate denier? First time I have seen her name on the list. Source please. Yes you showed us previously how Heartland was paid less than $50,000, if I recall correctly. But perhaps you can update. What would $50k purchase? A computer system perhaps?  Seeing as you worked in IT, perhaps you can tell us how big a system it would buy? And Exxon bought Heartland's undying love for that amount? :D :D :D :D

Some Ozpolitic extremist right wing denizens have sold their souls and obeisance for a pat on the head.

Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 11:05am:

ome Ozpolitic extremist right wing denizens have sold their souls and obeisance for a pat on the head.

Thank you for that well thought-out and meaningful reponse/ ;)

lee wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 10:18am:

Let's see a short list of climate scientists- Kevin Trenberth - Meteorologist Michael E Mann - Geology and Geophysics Nope neither are Climate Scientists.

Try not to be a fool. Just try. Kevin Trenberth has written several textbooks on Climatology.


Quote:

Kevin Trenberth is a Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). He has been prominent in all aspects of climate variability and climate change research. His current research focuses on the global energy and water cycles and how they are changing. He has published over 470 scientific articles or papers including 47 books or book chapters and over 200 refereed journal articles. He was a Coordinating Lead Author for the 1995 and 2007 scientific assessment reports and a Lead Author of the 2001 scientific assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007

lee wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 10:28am:

So Gina Rinehart is a climate denier? First time I have seen her name on the list. Source please.

Yes,  and the pope is Catholic too.
http://www.readfearn.com/2012/06/what-the-worlds-richest-woman-gina-rinehart-thinks-about-climate-change/

Quote:

SHE is the richest woman on the planet with a personal fortune approaching $30 billion thanks to her coal and iron ore businesses. But when it comes to arguably the planet’s most pressing problem – human-caused climate change – the Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart dismisses out of hand not only the issue, but the expertise of the world’s climate science community. Now, Rinehart, the head and owner of Hancock Prospecting, has revealed that she wants to use her substantial stakes in two leading Australian media companies to be able to promote the views of climate science deniers.

From Gina Rinehart herself:

Quote:

I am yet to hear scientific evidence to satisfy me that if the very, very small amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (approximately 0.38%) was increased, it could lead to significant global warming. I have never met a geologist or leading scientist who believes adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will have any significant effect on climate change, especially not from a relatively small country like Australia

http://www.australianmining.com.au/news/gina-rinehart-urges-australians-to-fight-against-c

You need to get out more.

lee wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 10:10am:

random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 8:06am: random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:33am: lee wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:51pm: random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 8:27pm: You missed the point.  If you start trashing the most credible source of information, you then have to consider where you go to for your source of truth. When you can't verify the work of BoM, it is not credible. Oh really.  So you should be able to point us at something that is credible and we can verify.  Waiting .... http://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab187/rocker_4u/Unnamedsdfsfsdfsd.gif Sorry, I didn't realise I was operating on your time frame. You are the one who brought up "the most credible source of information". So if BoM is so credible, why can't the homogenisation of temperatures be replicated? The answer is that you cannot replicate a human thought.. So the homogenisation record of BoM can't be replicated, that is the ACORN-SAT "data", on which Australia's warming relies. Can't be verified (no records of how adjustments were derived), can't be replicated (as indicated above), can't be science. If you can't see that, then you suffer from cognitive dissonance; and can't be helped.

You are still dodging citing a more credible source of information.  Maybe that's because you don't have one.

lee wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 10:28am:

random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 7:56am: Joanne Nova is a contributor to the book Climate Change: The Facts published by the Institute of Public Affairs and featuring “22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate.” The Institute of Public Affairs, while not revealing most of its funders, is known to have received funding from mining magnate Gina Rinehart and at least one major tobacco company.  [9] Nova was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change where she is listed as one of several specialists on the issue of global warming. [5] Heartland is an Exxon funded organisation.  Nova is a Big Energy shill for hire.  An Oil and Coal climate change denial prostitute. So Gina Rinehart is a climate denier? First time I have seen her name on the list. Source please. Yes you showed us previously how Heartland was paid less than $50,000, if I recall correctly. But perhaps you can update. What would $50k purchase? A computer system perhaps?  Seeing as you worked in IT, perhaps you can tell us how big a system it would buy? And Exxon bought Heartland's undying love for that amount? :D :D :D :D

So you think Gina would be green?  You really have no fcukin idea do you.

"But when it comes to arguably the planet’s most pressing problem – human-caused climate change – the Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart dismisses out of hand not only the issue, but the expertise of the world’s climate science community.

Now, Rinehart, the head and owner of Hancock Prospecting, has revealed that she wants to use her substantial stakes in two leading Australian media companies to be able to promote the (her) views of climate science"

Exxon set up all sorts of complex entities to cover what they pay to who.  The $50k is a token effort for audit cover.

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 11:33am:

Yes,  and the pope is Catholic too. http://www.readfearn.com/2012/06/what-the-worlds-richest-woman-gina-rinehart-thi... Quote: SHE is the richest woman on the planet with a personal fortune approaching $30 billion thanks to her coal and iron ore businesses. But when it comes to arguably the planet’s most pressing problem – human-caused climate change – the Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart dismisses out of hand not only the issue, but the expertise of the world’s climate science community. Now, Rinehart, the head and owner of Hancock Prospecting, has revealed that she wants to use her substantial stakes in two leading Australian media companies to be able to promote the views of climate science deniers. From Gina Rinehart herself: Quote: I am yet to hear scientific evidence to satisfy me that if the very, very small amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (approximately 0.38%) was increased, it could lead to significant global warming. I have never met a geologist or leading scientist who believes adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will have any significant effect on climate change, especially not from a relatively small country like Australia http://www.australianmining.com.au/news/gina-rinehart-urges-australians-to-fight... You need to get out more.

Lets see Gina is a sceptic, therefore she should be ashamed of herself?

Redfearn? Ya kidding me. He's a kook.

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 11:22am:

Kevin Trenberth has written several textbooks on Climatology.

But he is a meteorologist. Not a Climate Scientist. So a meteorologist can be a climate scientist.

Trenberth and Fasullo- the heat is hiding in the ocean.

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 12:29pm:

lee wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 10:10am: random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 8:06am: random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:33am: lee wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:51pm: random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 8:27pm: You missed the point.  If you start trashing the most credible source of information, you then have to consider where you go to for your source of truth. When you can't verify the work of BoM, it is not credible. Oh really.  So you should be able to point us at something that is credible and we can verify.  Waiting .... http://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab187/rocker_4u/Unnamedsdfsfsdfsd.gif Sorry, I didn't realise I was operating on your time frame. You are the one who brought up "the most credible source of information". So if BoM is so credible, why can't the homogenisation of temperatures be replicated? The answer is that you cannot replicate a human thought.. So the homogenisation record of BoM can't be replicated, that is the ACORN-SAT "data", on which Australia's warming relies. Can't be verified (no records of how adjustments were derived), can't be replicated (as indicated above), can't be science. If you can't see that, then you suffer from cognitive dissonance; and can't be helped. You are still dodging citing a more credible source of information.  Maybe that's because you don't have one.

You are the one claiming BoM is a credible source.

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 12:35pm:

So you think Gina would be green?  You really have no fcukin idea do you. "But when it comes to arguably the planet’s most pressing problem – human-caused climate change – the Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart dismisses out of hand not only the issue, but the expertise of the world’s climate science community. Now, Rinehart, the head and owner of Hancock Prospecting, has revealed that she wants to use her substantial stakes in two leading Australian media companies to be able to promote the (her) views of climate science" Exxon set up all sorts of complex entities to cover what they pay to who.  The $50k is a token effort for audit cover.

I have never said Gina has Green credentials. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

Hell, she dismmisses the "consensus"? Wow, she is the only person to do so?

Substantial stakes in two large public companies? Is she on the Board? How will she control the publications?

Merely making statements does not make it factual.

I see that Redfearn made those statements in 2012, fast forward to 2015 -

'Gina Rinehart sells out of Fairfax Media'

http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/gina-rinehart-sells-out-of-fairfax-media-20150206-138b5i.html

Dated Feb 6 2015.

So laughable.

Exxon - The Exxon $50k was for audit cover - got a link to that?

lee wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 2:23pm:

random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 12:29pm: lee wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 10:10am: random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 8:06am: random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:33am: lee wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:51pm: random wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 8:27pm: You missed the point.  If you start trashing the most credible source of information, you then have to consider where you go to for your source of truth. When you can't verify the work of BoM, it is not credible. Oh really.  So you should be able to point us at something that is credible and we can verify.  Waiting .... http://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab187/rocker_4u/Unnamedsdfsfsdfsd.gif Sorry, I didn't realise I was operating on your time frame. You are the one who brought up "the most credible source of information". So if BoM is so credible, why can't the homogenisation of temperatures be replicated? The answer is that you cannot replicate a human thought.. So the homogenisation record of BoM can't be replicated, that is the ACORN-SAT "data", on which Australia's warming relies. Can't be verified (no records of how adjustments were derived), can't be replicated (as indicated above), can't be science. If you can't see that, then you suffer from cognitive dissonance; and can't be helped. You are still dodging citing a more credible source of information.  Maybe that's because you don't have one. You are the one claiming BoM is a credible source.

BoM is a credible source.  You are the one saying they are not.

By inference, that means you have more credible sources.  Please give us the benefit of them. 

Linky and stop dodging.

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 2:41pm:

BoM is a credible source.

Can't verify their own processes, can't replicate their own ACORN-SAT,

Too funny for words.

Nope, don't have any sources that would be deemed credible by you.

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 9:12am:

So what did the Townsville guy do exactly?   Whatever it was, how does that relate to Climate Change?

Given that the article states that

His key research focuses have been the Great Barrier Reef, coastal mangroves, coastal ecosystems and the impact of climate change.

it would suggest he is one of the lauded scientists.

More to the point he is another that got caught faking it.

lee wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 2:21pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 11:22am: Kevin Trenberth has written several textbooks on Climatology. But he is a meteorologist. Not a Climate Scientist. So a meteorologist can be a climate scientist. Trenberth and Fasullo- the heat is hiding in the ocean.

He is a  meteorologist and an atmospheric scientist. Along with others, he practically defined Climatology, having published about 500 papers on the subject. His original degree in 1972 was in Meteorology, but his expertise is in Atmospheric Physics, which is an essential part of modern Climatology as well as meteorology. So yes, a PhD  in meteorology can conduct research in climate science. Even today, there is some crossover. Climate Science is multidisciplinary.

In 1972, there was no such subject as Climatology, just as in Max Planck's day, you could not get a degree in Quantum Physics.   


Assuming you are using your usual source, Mr Watts is being disingenuous, just as you are.  Your mate is no PhD in meteorology. He just used to read the weather forecast on the radio.

No John, just pointing out random's logical thinking flaws.

That was the conversation you came in on.

lee wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 2:45pm:

random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 2:41pm: BoM is a credible source. Can't verify their own processes, can't replicate their own ACORN-SAT, Too funny for words. Nope, don't have any sources that would be deemed credible by you.

That's precisely what I thought.  You got nothing but shill bullshite.  Shaft the science and replace it with ...

http://thumb101.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1442660/167023163/stock-photo-bullshit-or-cow-feces-on-the-earth-cow-manure-is-a-natural-organic-fertilizer-167023163.jpg

mitasol wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 3:13pm:

random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 9:12am: So what did the Townsville guy do exactly?   Whatever it was, how does that relate to Climate Change? Given that the article states that His key research focuses have been the Great Barrier Reef, coastal mangroves, coastal ecosystems and the impact of climate change. it would suggest he is one of the lauded scientists. More to the point he is another that got caught faking it.

Did he raid the xmas fund maybe?

Got details?

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 4:13pm:

Shaft the science and replace it with ... ...

Yep, that's what appears to have happened at BoM.

lee wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 2:35pm:

random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 12:35pm: So you think Gina would be green?  You really have no fcukin idea do you. "But when it comes to arguably the planet’s most pressing problem – human-caused climate change – the Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart dismisses out of hand not only the issue, but the expertise of the world’s climate science community. Now, Rinehart, the head and owner of Hancock Prospecting, has revealed that she wants to use her substantial stakes in two leading Australian media companies to be able to promote the (her) views of climate science" Exxon set up all sorts of complex entities to cover what they pay to who.  The $50k is a token effort for audit cover. I have never said Gina has Green credentials. Don't try to put words in my mouth. Hell, she dismmisses the "consensus"? Wow, she is the only person to do so? Substantial stakes in two large public companies? Is she on the Board? How will she control the publications? Merely making statements does not make it factual. I see that Redfearn made those statements in 2012, fast forward to 2015 - 'Gina Rinehart sells out of Fairfax Media' http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/gina-rinehart-sells-out-of-fairfax-media-20150206-138b5i.html Dated Feb 6 2015. So laughable. Exxon - The Exxon $50k was for audit cover - got a link to that?

http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post/image/366606/resized_creepy-willy-wonka-meme-generator-so-interesting-please-tell-me-more-25ae0a.jpg

Whenever you run out of argument; you run up a pretty picture.

lee wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 4:18pm:

random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 4:13pm: Shaft the science and replace it with ... ... Yep, that's what appears to have happened at BoM.

I have to think about this ...

BoM or Lee?

BoM or Lee?

Ahhh.  I'll go with BoM.  But thanks for playing.

Hey random thanks for confirming my thoughts about you being a cork head.

Even when we have shown you that those models the alarmists are producing are dead wrong you still defend them.

I hope the next government sticks a hefty energy tax up your arse all based on this lie we have come to know as Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Anyone with half a brain can work out that Gore and his buddies just want to get rich selling carbon derivatives (fresh air) to nations.

Have you joined any other cults lately......... ::)

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 4:21pm:

But thanks for playing.

The only one playing is your five knuckle shuffle.

Ajax wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:26pm:

Hey random thanks for confirming my thoughts about you being a cork head. Even when we have shown you that those models the alarmists are producing are dead wrong you still defend them. I hope the next government sticks a hefty energy tax up your arse all based on this lie we have come to know as Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anyone with half a brain can work out that Gore and his buddies just want to get rich selling carbon derivatives (fresh air) to nations. Have you joined any other cults lately......... ::)

It's really hard to believe, but there are people who believe that pumping Gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere does nothing. 

"In the period 1751 to 1900, about 12 gigatonnes of carbon were released as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2008 the figure was about 334 gigatonnes."

Weird hey.

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 6:29pm:

It's really hard to believe, but there are people who believe that pumping Gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere does nothing. "In the period 1751 to 1900, about 12 gigatonnes of carbon were released as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2008 the figure was about 334 gigatonnes." Weird hey.

Yeah, CO₂ is increasing markedly, Temperatures not so much.

CO2 has never controlled temperature here on Earth.

Even when we had 7000ppm in the atmosphere there was no runaway greenhouse effect.

Today we are pumping out more CO2 than ever before but the temperature has stabilised and there has been no substantial warming for the last 18 years or so.


Quote:

IPCC's 'Gold Standard' Temperature Dataset Authenticates Global Cooling Over Last 15 Years The UK's HadCRUT3 global temperature dataset has been the IPCC's gold-standard for its political-agenda "science" reports - unfortunately for the IPCC, the HadCRUT dataset also confirms the disappearance of global warming, replaced by a very slight cooling trend (click on chart to enlarge - data sources) HadCRUT IPCC global cooling 15 years CO2It is estimated some 440 gigtons of human CO2 emissions have been produced over the last 15 years, in contrast to the estimated 330+ tons during the previous 15-year period ending 1997. Further, it was estimated by the consensus "experts" that a large increase in human emissions over the last 15 years would bring the world hellish warming. It has not happened. The climate scientists and their associated climate agencies were immensely wrong, as the adjacent chart indicates. As can be seen, over the first 15-period, prior to 1998, there was a strong warming trend (+1.4 degrees per century). As a result, the experts said human CO2 was the cause. They then emphatically predicted that this warming trend would continue and even accelerate. But it didn't - instead it decelerated. As the chart depicts, the last 15 years ending 2012 has seen a very slight decline in temperatures, wiping out the strong positive warming trend completely. This small cooling trend in surface temperatures is also supported by the satellite observations of the atmosphere. The global warming was wiped out even though total human CO2 emmisions were a third larger - 110 billion tons more than prior 15-year span. This empirical evidence has become so convincing that the cooling deniers are even starting to eat that awful tasting, proverbial crow (here and here). In the meantime, they debate amongst themselves about how befuddled they are concerning the lack of warming, obviously confirming what skeptics knew all the time - their bizarre anti-CO2 phobia and rigid consensus constraints have long blinded them to scientific truth. read more here http://www.c3headlines.com/are-global-temperatures-increasing/page/3/

http://i65.tinypic.com/16k9n5z.png

Got a link to who made up that graph Ajax?

You have used it before ... I'm calling bullshite.

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

I'm calling bullshite.

On your speed dial is he?

lee wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 8:13pm:

random wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 7:19pm: I'm calling bullshite. On your speed dial is he?

The height of delusion, thinking that creating a graph showing leveling off of climate change, will make that happen.

Ajax wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 6:36pm:

CO2 has never controlled temperature here on Earth. Even when we had 7000ppm in the atmosphere there was no runaway greenhouse effect. Today we are pumping out more CO2 than ever before but the temperature has stabilised and there has been no substantial warming for the last 18 years or so. http://i65.tinypic.com/16k9n5z.png

Good graph.

And the temperatures are already going down.

The new Ice Age is upon us.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 8:49pm:

Ajax wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:36pm: CO2 has never controlled temperature here on Earth. Even when we had 7000ppm in the atmosphere there was no runaway greenhouse effect. Today we are pumping out more CO2 than ever before but the temperature has stabilised and there has been no substantial warming for the last 18 years or so. http://i65.tinypic.com/16k9n5z.png Good graph. And the temperatures are already going down. The new Ice Age is upon us.

Sir fcukin Bobby.  From the limited time I have been here I have seen you shamed and discredited more than once, but that does not matter to you.

You continually look like an ill-informed fool, a Forest Gump who just dumbly keeps posting shite.  An ice age in a planet with proven warming.

The interweb is full of Bobby's, a real down-side to technology.

Hey random you don't trust satellite data..??


Quote:

The global HadCRUT4 dataset, updated through July 31, 2013, reveals little warming over 15 years despite the huge influx of human CO2 emissions and the subsequent large growth in atmospheric CO2 levels The chart on left plots the monthly HadCRUT anomalies and monthly atmospheric levels over the last 15 years (180 months).  As indicated on the chart, the linear trend for temperatures means a tiny increase in global temperatures of a trivial +0.58 degrees by 2100AD, if this trend were to continue (it won't). In addition, as the R2 on the chart reveals, there has been a very weak relationship between CO2 levels and temperature anomalies - suggesting an extremely small, to an almost non-existent, climate sensitivity to CO2. The chart on the right, in contrast, examines global temperature change and its relationship to CO2 in a different manner. In the case of temperature, the right chart plots the the 15-year difference in monthly anomalies. So, for example, one of the plot points is the difference (increase/decrease) between the month of January 1850 and January 1865 - this 15-year difference calculation is done for each month, all the way through July 2013. The dark blue curve represents the 36-month moving average of the 15-year differences of the temperature anomalies. The same 15-year difference is also plotted for monthly atmospheric CO2 levels, represented by the black curve - actually, a 36-month moving average of the CO2 differences. (To simplify the chart, used an Excel option to just show the 36-mth average.) Visually, it is very clear that the 15-year differences (changes) in temperature anomalies have little, if any, relationship to the 15-year changes in CO2 levels. In fact, the R2 between temperature changes and CO2 changes is absurdly low - again, suggesting a climate sensitivity to CO2 as being rather low. Conclusions: 1. Currently, global warming on a monthly basis is immeasurable and will amount to very little by year 2100, if this trend continues. 2. The empricial evidence is unequivocal and irrefutable, global warming is not accelerating. 3. The increasing absolute amounts of CO2 have had a small influence, at best, on temperatures during the last 15 years. 4. Longer-term changes in CO2 levels appear not to have even a minor impact on long-term temperature changes - maybe a trivial impact, though. Note: Linear trends are not predictions. Original data used with Excel to produce the plots, trends, correlations and averages. Previous temperature/climate charts. Read more here http://www.c3headlines.com/are-global-temperatures-increasing/page/3/

http://i66.tinypic.com/ogfa5u.png http://i64.tinypic.com/72zr7c.png

Quote:

IPCC's 'Gold Standard' Temperature Dataset Authenticates Global Cooling Over Last 15 Years The UK's HadCRUT3 global temperature dataset has been the IPCC's gold-standard for its political-agenda "science" reports - unfortunately for the IPCC, the HadCRUT dataset also confirms the disappearance of global warming, replaced by a very slight cooling trend (click on chart to enlarge - data sources) HadCRUT IPCC global cooling 15 years CO2It is estimated some 440 gigtons of human CO2 emissions have been produced over the last 15 years, in contrast to the estimated 330+ tons during the previous 15-year period ending 1997. Further, it was estimated by the consensus "experts" that a large increase in human emissions over the last 15 years would bring the world hellish warming. It has not happened. The climate scientists and their associated climate agencies were immensely wrong, as the adjacent chart indicates. As can be seen, over the first 15-period, prior to 1998, there was a strong warming trend (+1.4 degrees per century). As a result, the experts said human CO2 was the cause. They then emphatically predicted that this warming trend would continue and even accelerate. But it didn't - instead it decelerated. As the chart depicts, the last 15 years ending 2012 has seen a very slight decline in temperatures, wiping out the strong positive warming trend completely. This small cooling trend in surface temperatures is also supported by the satellite observations of the atmosphere. The global warming was wiped out even though total human CO2 emmisions were a third larger - 110 billion tons more than prior 15-year span. This empirical evidence has become so convincing that the cooling deniers are even starting to eat that awful tasting, proverbial crow (here and here). In the meantime, they debate amongst themselves about how befuddled they are concerning the lack of warming, obviously confirming what skeptics knew all the time - their bizarre anti-CO2 phobia and rigid consensus constraints have long blinded them to scientific truth. read more here http://www.c3headlines.com/are-global-temperatures-increasing/page/3/

http://i65.tinypic.com/16k9n5z.png

random wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 8:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 8:49pm: Ajax wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 6:36pm: CO2 has never controlled temperature here on Earth. Even when we had 7000ppm in the atmosphere there was no runaway greenhouse effect. Today we are pumping out more CO2 than ever before but the temperature has stabilised and there has been no substantial warming for the last 18 years or so. http://i65.tinypic.com/16k9n5z.png Good graph. And the temperatures are already going down. The new Ice Age is upon us. Sir fcukin Bobby.  From the limited time I have been here I have seen you shamed and discredited more than once, but that does not matter to you. You continually look like an ill-informed fool, a Forest Gump who just dumbly keeps posting shite.  An ice age in a planet with proven warming. The interweb is full of Bobby's, a real down-side to technology.

Argumentum ad Hominem.

forgiven

namaste

Yes Bobby he (random) is a very rude prick indeed.

hey random this is where the IPCC fooled themselves and are still trying to fool us all today instead of admitting their wrong.

They thought that trend would continue for ever, see red cloud on graph.

http://i63.tinypic.com/1zwey6v.jpg

Reference the graphs.  Satellite data if fine.  It's the dishonest stuff others do with it that is the problem.

You are avoiding naming the bullshite source.  Till then it all crap.

random wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 6:53am:

Reference the graphs.  Satellite data if fine.  It's the dishonest stuff others do with it that is the problem. You are avoiding naming the bullshite source.  Till then it all crap.

That's priceless. Pot meet kettle.

Question:

Is the damage being done by CO2 on its own - or by CO2 combining with other gasses?

mitasol wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 8:10am:

random wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 6:53am: Reference the graphs.  Satellite data if fine.  It's the dishonest stuff others do with it that is the problem. You are avoiding naming the bullshite source.  Till then it all crap. That's priceless. Pot meet kettle.

Till I get a reference for the graphs posted, the dishonesty lies with the posters of them.  I have referenced my posts.

random wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 10:54am:

Till I get a reference for the graphs posted, the dishonesty lies with the posters of them.  I have referenced my posts.

Yep, newspaper articles.

lee wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 11:29am:

random wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 10:54am: Till I get a reference for the graphs posted, the dishonesty lies with the posters of them.  I have referenced my posts. Yep, newspaper articles.

Which referenced the papers.

Still waiting for a cite to the authors of the bullshite graphs ...

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 8:21am:

Question: Is the damage being done by CO2 on its own - or by CO2 combining with other gasses?

Never heard of CO2 equivalence have ya buddy  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D