by our Chief Scientist.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/you-got-polar-ice-for-that-burn?utm_term=.jx74obV0A#.odBAwkynv

Please read and educate yourself.

I wonder what irrelevant side issue Lee will use to detract and deflect?

From 1912!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvHvSd2UAAA6y4f.jpg

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 9:56am:

I wonder what irrelevant side issue Lee will use to detract and deflect?

from your quote -

'That theory goes back to 1896, Swedish physical chemist Svante Arrhenius did the initial work on that. He subsequently got a Nobel prize for other work and he identified that back in 1896 that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, for basic physical reasons will trap heat.'

Two things immediately spring to mind.

1. Why does Finkel use Arrhenius 1896 paper? In his 1906 paper he lowered the amount of warming postulated by a doubling of CO2. In his 1896 paper he said 5 or 6°C. In his 1906 paper he said 1.6°C - 3.9°C.  But the same qualifiers persist.

2. Chief among them, and something entirely missed by Finkel, is the part where Arrhenius said "all other things being equal".

To date no-one has shown that all other things are equal. Water vapour, Air pressure. Isn't that one of the first things they should try to prove?

Of course you will probably think that is a deflection, because you are a true beleiber (sic).

BTW - Didn't someone the other day post hat there was more water vapour in the atmosphere?

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 10:08am:

From 1912! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvHvSd2UAAA6y4f.jpg

Yep. we're nowhere near a few centuries from 1912. ;)

We are getting there tho, and that rate of coal burning has probably accelerated too. Not only that, we are destroying CO2 sinks like forests, just look at what is happening in the Amazon!

D- deflection. Needs to try harder.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 9:56am:

by our Chief Scientist. https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/you-got-polar-ice-for-that-burn?utm_term=.jx74obV0A#.odBAwkynv Please read and educate yourself. I wonder what irrelevant side issue Lee will use to detract and deflect?

lee has already made up his mind

future generations of children MUST be sacrificed so that his delusional sub-standard of living can be maintained today - in his own mind of course.

There is nothing you can do about it.

facts, peer reviewed articles, experts - it doesnt matter to Bruce - he continues to worship the Great Bolt in the Sky - his mentor.

It is very fortunate for me that I have only a hand full of posts remaining before I depart

8-)

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 12:04pm:

We are getting there tho, and that rate of coal burning has probably accelerated too. Not only that, we are destroying CO2 sinks like forests, just look at what is happening in the Amazon! D- deflection. Needs to try harder.

Highlighted - Deflection, still a net CO2 sink.

Now you need to expand on that and show the reserves will provide the level of CO2 that you seek.

And don't forget Australia and South America (still) are CO2 sinks.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 12:07pm:

facts, peer reviewed articles, experts - it doesnt matter to Bruce - he continues to worship the Great Bolt in the Sky - his mentor.

No peer-reviewed article supporting your position? Why am I not surprised?

lee wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 3:54pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 12:07pm: facts, peer reviewed articles, experts - it doesnt matter to Bruce - he continues to worship the Great Bolt in the Sky - his mentor. No peer-reviewed article supporting your position? Why am I not surprised?

You trust Bolt and EXXON-MOBIL executives

Why am I not surprised

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 6:35pm:

You trust Bolt and EXXON-MOBIL executives Why am I not surprised

You still haven't told me who Bolt is.

Edit: There is a Bolty's Electrical in Wagin.

As for Exxon-Mobil it seems strange that the Republican AG's having been running away from their RICO attempt, at a great rate of knots.

It seems it was more politically inspired, with much input from Greenpeace, Al Gore etc, than a genuine attempt. Something to provide theatre for the Presidential Election.

lee wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 7:24pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 6:35pm: You trust Bolt and EXXON-MOBIL executives Why am I not surprised You still haven't told me who Bolt is. Edit: There is a Bolty's Electrical in Wagin. As for Exxon-Mobil it seems strange that the Republican AG's having been running away from their RICO attempt, at a great rate of knots. It seems it was more politically inspired, with much input from Greenpeace, Al Gore etc, than a genuine attempt. Something to provide theatre for the Presidential Election.

Who is this ALice Gore lady you keep dragging up? Is she a Climatologist?

Why did EXXON conceal their own internal research into the dangers of global warming and its effect of the earth's climate system?

I am sure you are aware that EXXON is being sued over its climate change cover up and fraud?

Why is that happening lee?

You should apologise before I vacate this establishment - a vacation event that will occur prior to Halloween

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 10:34pm:

Who is this ALice Gore lady you keep dragging up? Is she a Climatologist?

Albert (Al) Gore - oncea Vice president of the USA. He a[ppeared at the stage manages Democrat Attorney's General meet, where they proclaimed a RICO (Racketeering) charge against Exxon-Mobil. Now exactly why an ex-politician, who is not involved in law enforcement anywhere, should be at a meeting with the Attorney's General at that time is unclear. But it certainly seems political.


Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 10:34pm:

Why did EXXON conceal their own internal research into the dangers of global warming and its effect of the earth's climate system?

You mean those hundreds of research papers that they wrote and were published in peer-reviewed magazines?  Concealment in plain sight. :D :D :D :D


Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 10:34pm:

I am sure you are aware that EXXON is being sued over its climate change cover up and fraud?

You haven't been paying attention, the Democrat AG's have backed away at a great rate of knots. Try googling #Exxon-knew, perhaps the last month and see what pops up. ;)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 10:34pm:

Who is this ALice Gore lady you keep dragging up? Is she a Climatologist?

Hmm. Jovial Monk cites Australia's Chief Scientist. Is he a Climatologist?

'Chief scientist Dr Alan Finkel (who has a PhD in electrical engineering and was a postdoctorate. fellow in neuroscience)'

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/you-got-polar-ice-for-that-burn?utm_term=.jx74obV0A#.odBAwkynv

I guess the answer is an emphatic  "NO".

lee wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2016 at 3:59pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 10:34pm: Who is this ALice Gore lady you keep dragging up? Is she a Climatologist? Hmm. Jovial Monk cites Australia's Chief Scientist. Is he a Climatologist? 'Chief scientist Dr Alan Finkel (who has a PhD in electrical engineering and was a postdoctorate. fellow in neuroscience)' https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/you-got-polar-ice-for-that-burn?utm_term=.jx74obV0A#.odBAwkynv I guess the answer is an emphatic  "NO".

the basic principles of AGW are grasped easily by secondary and even primary school level students.

i noticed that you were very silent on Sir Bobby's reference to Dr. Sircus and his baking soda cancer cure, whilst he was moonlighting as an expert on AGW and climate change.

Bruce has entangled himself in his own web of deceit and toxified his soul in a drenched venom of hatred.

i will miss his deranged sense of cerebral stench and self contained delusional verbal excrement...

i formally thank you for the entertainment and free data points on my insanity plot....

there is no need to apologise because its really not your fault Bruce.....but you must self ban

cheers mate

all the best

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2016 at 10:12pm:

the basic principles of AGW are grasped easily by secondary and even primary school level students.

Even the bit "All other things being equal"?

Water vapour is increasing, therefore "all other things" have not remained equal. ;)

Basic principle. ;)

lee wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 11:50am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 9:56am: I wonder what irrelevant side issue Lee will use to detract and deflect? from your quote - 'That theory goes back to 1896, Swedish physical chemist Svante Arrhenius did the initial work on that. He subsequently got a Nobel prize for other work and he identified that back in 1896 that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, for basic physical reasons will trap heat.' Two things immediately spring to mind. 1. Why does Finkel use Arrhenius 1896 paper? In his 1906 paper he lowered the amount of warming postulated by a doubling of CO2. In his 1896 paper he said 5 or 6°C. In his 1906 paper he said 1.6°C - 3.9°C.  But the same qualifiers persist. 2. Chief among them, and something entirely missed by Finkel, is the part where Arrhenius said "all other things being equal". To date no-one has shown that all other things are equal. Water vapour, Air pressure. Isn't that one of the first things they should try to prove? Of course you will probably think that is a deflection, because you are a true beleiber (sic). BTW - Didn't someone the other day post hat there was more water vapour in the atmosphere?

There is more water vapour because of an injection of GHG's by man: we don't drill for water and burn it so it becomes a problem.

Are you, like, a chick on speed or something mate?

   *** "...hey, Dad, ... I need some more money and stuff ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)!"

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 12:07pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 9:56am: by our Chief Scientist. Please read and educate yourself. I wonder what irrelevant side issue Lee will use to detract and deflect? lee has already made up his mind future generations of children MUST be sacrificed so that his delusional sub-standard of living can be maintained today - in his own mind of course. There is nothing you can do about it. facts, peer reviewed articles, experts - it doesnt matter to Bruce - he continues to worship the Great Bolt in the Sky - his mentor. It is very fortunate for me that I have only a hand full of posts remaining before I depart 8-)

I'd be sad to see that day but- well- I will rejoice for you because this internet thing never learns!

I shouldn't have bothered spending twelve months dreaming up a new gmail account now I think about it... DRATS, BUT BULLY FOR YOU AS YOU HAVE BEEN A SAGE TO THIS FORUM AND DONE YOUR BIT TO SAVE THE KIDS  :)

lee wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 3:52pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 12:04pm: We are getting there tho, and that rate of coal burning has probably accelerated too. Not only that, we are destroying CO2 sinks like forests, just look at what is happening in the Amazon! D- deflection. Needs to try harder. Highlighted - Deflection, still a net CO2 sink. Now you need to expand on that and show the reserves will provide the level of CO2 that you seek. And don't forget Australia and South America (still) are CO2 sinks.

Is lee entertaining a non changing world?

....like wtf is this forum?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ? Oh, that's right: this is the new bullshite scam that is modern Australia pissing on their diggers pretending to be all old school in suits with pugilistic nouse and crap but really cowering their fascistic tendency behind standing armies and trade deals and nuclear weapons and other countries developed complexes....

Go Aussie: yeh, like, let's all buy a new car and never talk to  our neighbour cos we've got treks to Europe to save for and crap with dolly the girlfriend  ::)

lee wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2016 at 11:51am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2016 at 10:12pm: the basic principles of AGW are grasped easily by secondary and even primary school level students. Even the bit "All other things being equal"? Water vapour is increasing, therefore "all other things" have not remained equal. ;) Basic principle. ;)

::) ::)

TheFunPolice wrote on Oct 27^th, 2016 at 5:46pm:

I'd be sad to see that day but- well- I will rejoice for you because this internet thing never learns! I shouldn't have bothered spending twelve months dreaming up a new gmail account now I think about it... DRATS, BUT BULLY FOR YOU AS YOU HAVE BEEN A SAGE TO THIS FORUM AND DONE YOUR BIT TO SAVE THE KIDS  :)

thanks mate - but there is absolutely nothing anyone can do now - my time here is almost up - I am washed up and finished.

Its all over for me mate.

I am very proud and honoured that you have dedicated ONE of your magnificent 15 posts on Ozpolotic as a formal response to one of my posts.

Well done mate

Well done on that front

You should be congratulated on your public efforts.

You will reach 30,000 or more posts, like Jethro, in no time. I will not be present on this glorious day, but it will happen mate - and well done again

Some REAL AGW scientists putting their lives on the line:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/science/gordon-hamilton.html?_r=0

Go on Lee, post some cheap diversion about this!

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 29^th, 2016 at 9:30am:

Some REAL AGW scientists putting their lives on the line: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/science/gordon-hamilton.html?_r=0 Go on Lee, post some cheap diversion about this!

Seeing I am not a subscriber, tell me what you want met think. ;)

TheFunPolice wrote on Oct 27^th, 2016 at 5:33pm:

There is more water vapour because of an injection of GHG's by man: we don't drill for water and burn it so it becomes a problem. Are you, like, a chick on speed or something mate?

You have a similar writing style to one we know. Are you sure you are not a sock? ;)

BTW - That greater water vapour must be making things warmer, eh?

lee wrote on Oct 29^th, 2016 at 4:21pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Oct 27th, 2016 at 5:33pm: There is more water vapour because of an injection of GHG's by man: we don't drill for water and burn it so it becomes a problem. Are you, like, a chick on speed or something mate? You have a similar writing style to one we know. Are you sure you are not a sock? ;) BTW - That greater water vapour must be making things warmer, eh?

You can't deal with me son: you're toast!

:D

TheFunPolice wrote on Oct 31^st, 2016 at 5:10pm:

You can't deal with me son: you're toast!

Butter me up. :D :D :D :D :D :D

Thanks DAD. ;)

It's interesting that the 2 Greens senators resigned from the senate when they discovered that they had citizenship issues.

On the other hand Malcolm Roberts just lied about his citizenship issues.

It's easy to see who has more integrity

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 9:33am:

It's interesting that the 2 Greens senators resigned from the senate when they discovered that they had citizenship issues. On the other hand Malcolm Roberts just lied about his citizenship issues. It's easy to see who has more integrity

Obviously not you. This is supposedly a science thread. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 9:33am:

It's interesting that the 2 Greens senators resigned from the senate when they discovered that they had citizenship issues. On the other hand Malcolm Roberts just lied about his citizenship issues. It's easy to see who has more integrity

Not strictly true and what has it got to do with AGW?
All it means is that we have political parties who do not prepare or vet their candidates properly.
Roberts BTW can put an argument together re AGW and is more correct than a great many climate zealots.

Grendel wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 1:54pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 29th, 2017 at 9:33am: It's interesting that the 2 Greens senators resigned from the senate when they discovered that they had citizenship issues. On the other hand Malcolm Roberts just lied about his citizenship issues. It's easy to see who has more integrity Not strictly true and what has it got to do with AGW? All it means is that we have political parties who do not prepare or vet their candidates properly. Roberts BTW can put an argument together re AGW and is more correct than a great many climate zealots.

This is the environment forum and the Greens are an environmental party. The  thread involves Malcolm Roberts and his reliability and integrity is completely relevant to the topic.

He has shown himself to be completely untrustworthy and a liar

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 2:13pm:

The  thread involves Malcolm Roberts and his reliability and integrity is completely relevant to the topic.

Well perhaps, addressing the topic, you can point out the flaws in what he said on AGW. ;)

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 2:13pm:

Grendel wrote on Oct 29th, 2017 at 1:54pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 29th, 2017 at 9:33am: It's interesting that the 2 Greens senators resigned from the senate when they discovered that they had citizenship issues. On the other hand Malcolm Roberts just lied about his citizenship issues. It's easy to see who has more integrity Not strictly true and what has it got to do with AGW? All it means is that we have political parties who do not prepare or vet their candidates properly. Roberts BTW can put an argument together re AGW and is more correct than a great many climate zealots. This is the environment forum and the Greens are an environmental party. The  thread involves Malcolm Roberts and his reliability and integrity is completely relevant to the topic. He has shown himself to be completely untrustworthy and a liar

Ah no he hasn't but YOU are pushing the limits of integrity though.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 9:56am:

by our Chief Scientist. https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/you-got-polar-ice-for-that-burn?utm_term=.jx74obV0A#.odBAwkynv Please read and educate yourself. I wonder what irrelevant side issue Lee will use to detract and deflect?

Oh and I missed the part where Robert's got schooled in anything. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 1:54pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 29th, 2017 at 9:33am: It's interesting that the 2 Greens senators resigned from the senate when they discovered that they had citizenship issues. On the other hand Malcolm Roberts just lied about his citizenship issues. It's easy to see who has more integrity Not strictly true and what has it got to do with AGW? All it means is that we have political parties who do not prepare or vet their candidates properly. Roberts BTW can put an argument together re AGW and is more correct than a great many climate zealots.

Roberts is vague!

;)

Many hypnotists acknowledge they can't convince everyone!

Hypnotists don't even bother trying to convince everyone... But you know all that!

TheFunPolice wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 3:50pm:

Roberts is vague!

You mean like climate scientists? IF, May, Could?  ;)

lee wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 4:25pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Oct 30th, 2017 at 3:50pm: Roberts is vague! You mean like climate scientists? IF, May, Could?  ;)

Lol!

You're actually comparing Malcolm Roberts statements to that of climate science aren't you?

;D

We all know jevons paradox pays your bills buddy  :D

TheFunPolice wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 4:44pm:

Lol! You're actually comparing Malcolm Roberts statements to that of climate science aren't you?

Well, seeing as his comments are about "climate science"^TM, I think he should be accorded the same amount of vagueness. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 4:57pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Oct 30th, 2017 at 4:44pm: Lol! You're actually comparing Malcolm Roberts statements to that of climate science aren't you? Well, seeing as his comments are about "climate science"TM, I think he should be accorded the same amount of vagueness. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

.........says Lee^TM  ::)

Roberts' vagueness is Empirical...  he accepts nothing less.

Climate Change zealots appropriate anything and everything.

Grendel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2017 at 11:11am:

Roberts' vagueness is Empirical...  he accepts nothing less. Climate Change zealots appropriate anything and everything.

You don't even know what empirical means  ;)

Prove it...