Even a layman can see that the world is warming, just look how nearly all glaciers are retreating, Greenland is losing 200Gtons of ice a year, the Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk dramatically—anyone can find images of the shrinking of the Arctic.

Conservatives fear change but it is not just conservatives that deny AGW.

Sea levels are rising and when Antarctica starts losing net ice (it is gaining mass more and more slowly) sea level rise will speed up. (At present Antarctica is reducing sea level rise.)

There are a couple here who fear AGW so much the have let a lying charlatan convince them we are entering a Little Ice Age because sunspot numbers will reach a minimum. That might temporarily reduce temperatures by .5°C. This character Dubyne in a video a week or so ago said a lake in Melbourne turning pink was a sign of the Little Ice Age  ::) :)

I don’t know.

If anybody here does not believe or disbelieves AGW then can you tell WHY? There is time to decarbonise the economy and avoid “catastrophe” so by denying you are making catastrophe certain! The irony of denialism.

It isn’t easy to think that urgent action is needed, like people talking themselves into believing war won’t come then a world was happens! But action now will be easier and cheaper than action in 20 years (or whatever) time.

I don’t consider deniers are unintelligent just afraid. Or maybe scientists are not conveying the science clearly and plainly enough?

Comments?

It is a mystery I agree.
Most of it is to do with the A ... they  don't accept that human actions are causing Climate change.

Seems pretty stupid to me. Perhaps it is because they think humans are created by God, and therefore supreme, and saying we are fouling our own nest is an insult, which they take personally.

But lets face it folks, we ARE destroying our only home. Not even animals do that. Only us.

We are obviously not as supreme as some claim.

Yes, for some it is religious upbringing “Only Gawd can change the climate!” kind of thing—and some of that religious aspect could be buried deep and even be unknown to the denier.

For some, the “almighty dollar” could be the reason.

Or just set in their ways, comfortable life don’t even want to contemplate having to change, to give up some comfort.

I certainly don't "deny" AGW.

It might be real, however, there's no reliable, conclusive evidence at the moment that supports the theory.

Is there climate change? Sure.

Do we know exactly what causes it? Absolutely not. Anyone who says otherwise, is lying.

Despite that, if people honestly believe that we can change the climate for the better I'm happy to go along with whatever "solutions" they want to offer.

Renewable energy? Great idea - go for it.

Recycle? No problem - I've always recycled.

Ride a bike or walk, instead of using your car? Again, I do this all the time.

Climate change doesn't concern me in the slightest.

On a list of things that worry me, it wouldn't even make the top 1,000.

If you think you can "save the world", though, knock yourself out. I'm not gonna stand in your way.

Well, you are wrong on all counts re AGW Gregg.

Do you feel threatened by AGW?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 10:19am:

Well, you are wrong on all counts re AGW Gregg.

All counts?  Please explain.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 10:19am:

Do you feel threatened by AGW?

Not in the slightest.

It's merely a theory.

All science is “just a theory.”

Some theories are well supported by evidence, like AGW and relativity. Public policy should bear in mind solid theories like AGW. We even know the mechanism.

As I said in the OP, the man in the street can see AGW in action: the retreat of glaciers, the huge ice loss from Greenland. the shrinking of Arctic sea ice and so on and so on.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 10:41am:

All science is “just a theory.” Some theories are well supported by evidence, like AGW and relativity. Public policy should bear in mind solid theories like AGW. We even know the mechanism. As I said in the OP, the man in the street can see AGW in action: the retreat of glaciers, the huge ice loss from Greenland. the shrinking of Arctic sea ice and so on and so on.

No, they can see climate change in action.

AGW is just one possible explanation.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 10:44am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 10:41am: All science is “just a theory.” Some theories are well supported by evidence, like AGW and relativity. Public policy should bear in mind solid theories like AGW. We even know the mechanism. As I said in the OP, the man in the street can see AGW in action: the retreat of glaciers, the huge ice loss from Greenland. the shrinking of Arctic sea ice and so on and so on. No, they can see climate change in action. AGW is just one possible explanation.

Finally.....something worth reading.

In this forum.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 10:44am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 10:41am: All science is “just a theory.” Some theories are well supported by evidence, like AGW and relativity. Public policy should bear in mind solid theories like AGW. We even know the mechanism. As I said in the OP, the man in the street can see AGW in action: the retreat of glaciers, the huge ice loss from Greenland. the shrinking of Arctic sea ice and so on and so on. No, they can see climate change in action. AGW is just one possible explanation.

Nope. We know that GHGs absorb IR photons heading to space.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 10:57am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 10:44am: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 10:41am: All science is “just a theory.” Some theories are well supported by evidence, like AGW and relativity. Public policy should bear in mind solid theories like AGW. We even know the mechanism. As I said in the OP, the man in the street can see AGW in action: the retreat of glaciers, the huge ice loss from Greenland. the shrinking of Arctic sea ice and so on and so on. No, they can see climate change in action. AGW is just one possible explanation. Nope. We know that GHGs absorb IR photons heading to space.

Yep.

I am 100% correct.

We can see climate change in action, however, AGW is just one possible explanation.

This is indisputable.

Sorry Greg, you are just a denier. WHY do you deny AGW?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:18am:

Sorry Greg, you are just a denier. WHY do you deny AGW?

Once again, when faced with the truth, you resort to lies.

I'm not an AGW denier, and I've told you this on several occasions.

This is why the AGW cult gets such a bad reputation.

You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I'm not listening, I'm not listening", however, I'll always keep an open mind on the subject.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:16am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 10:57am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 10:44am: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 10:41am: All science is “just a theory.” Some theories are well supported by evidence, like AGW and relativity. Public policy should bear in mind solid theories like AGW. We even know the mechanism. As I said in the OP, the man in the street can see AGW in action: the retreat of glaciers, the huge ice loss from Greenland. the shrinking of Arctic sea ice and so on and so on. No, they can see climate change in action. AGW is just one possible explanation. Nope. We know that GHGs absorb IR photons heading to space. Yep. I am 100% correct. We can see climate change in action, however, AGW is just one possible explanation. This is indisputable.

It's also why there is no consensus.

Says the forum clown.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:23am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:18am: Sorry Greg, you are just a denier. WHY do you deny AGW? Once again, when faced with the truth, you resort to lies. I'm not an AGW denier, and I've told you this on several occasions. This is why the AGW cult gets such a bad reputation. You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I'm not listening, I'm not listening", however, I'll always keep an open mind on the subject.

100% correct.

And I'm not an AGW denier either!

Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:28am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:23am: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:18am: Sorry Greg, you are just a denier. WHY do you deny AGW? Once again, when faced with the truth, you resort to lies. I'm not an AGW denier, and I've told you this on several occasions. This is why the AGW cult gets such a bad reputation. You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I'm not listening, I'm not listening", however, I'll always keep an open mind on the subject. 100% correct. And I'm not an AGW denier either!

Neither am I -

I have just presented an alternative theory of global cooling.

Of course you are not Lisa.

You couldn’t understand the evidence for one.

Gregg is a denier tho.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:35am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:28am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:23am: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:18am: Sorry Greg, you are just a denier. WHY do you deny AGW? Once again, when faced with the truth, you resort to lies. I'm not an AGW denier, and I've told you this on several occasions. This is why the AGW cult gets such a bad reputation. You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I'm not listening, I'm not listening", however, I'll always keep an open mind on the subject. 100% correct. And I'm not an AGW denier either! Neither am I - I have just presented an alternative theory of global cooling.

You mean you posted a heap of crap videos made by not a scientist but a lying charlatan. When I show the lies in the videos you are unable to refute what I post.

You are such a frightened denier you chose to believe a liar preaching global cooling.

There will likely be another El Nino this year. {Pop!} goes global cooling.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:35am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:28am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:23am: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:18am: Sorry Greg, you are just a denier. WHY do you deny AGW? Once again, when faced with the truth, you resort to lies. I'm not an AGW denier, and I've told you this on several occasions. This is why the AGW cult gets such a bad reputation. You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I'm not listening, I'm not listening", however, I'll always keep an open mind on the subject. 100% correct. And I'm not an AGW denier either! Neither am I - I have just presented an alternative theory of global cooling.

That's the problem, Booby: the AGW cult will not accept alternative theories.

They are completely unscientific and untruthful in their approach, and that's why they have such a bad reputation.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:35am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:28am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:23am: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:18am: Sorry Greg, you are just a denier. WHY do you deny AGW? Once again, when faced with the truth, you resort to lies. I'm not an AGW denier, and I've told you this on several occasions. This is why the AGW cult gets such a bad reputation. You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I'm not listening, I'm not listening", however, I'll always keep an open mind on the subject. 100% correct. And I'm not an AGW denier either! Neither am I - I have just presented an alternative theory of global cooling.

I know.

Probably a good idea to let Monk spew his garbage without any response by anyone.

He's used to brewing monologues.

Why he's dedicated an entire message board in honoUr of The  Monologue  ;D

Jovial is a victim of media brainwashing -
he can't think for himself &
even consider an alternative theory.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:40am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:35am: Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:28am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:23am: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:18am: Sorry Greg, you are just a denier. WHY do you deny AGW? Once again, when faced with the truth, you resort to lies. I'm not an AGW denier, and I've told you this on several occasions. This is why the AGW cult gets such a bad reputation. You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I'm not listening, I'm not listening", however, I'll always keep an open mind on the subject. 100% correct. And I'm not an AGW denier either! Neither am I - I have just presented an alternative theory of global cooling. That's the problem, Booby: the AGW cult will not accept alternative theories. They are completely unscientific and untruthful in their approach, and that's why they have such a bad reputation.

It would be nice if there was evidence of an alternative. There is not one in sight however.

That the world has warmed is not in question. It is not due to orbital changes. It is not due to the sun becoming warmer—the sun has  been quiescent for some decades while the world continued to warm.

The concentration of CO2 is increasing.  Spectrometry shows that CO2 and methane (plus some other minor GHGs) absorb infrared photons heading to space.

Any alternative theories need very good evidence to supplant AGW.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:41am:

Jovial is a victim of media brainwashing - he can't think for himself & even consider an alternative theory.

Sad, but true.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:41am:

Jovial is a victim of media brainwashing - he can't think for himself & even consider an alternative theory.

hahahahahaha Booby believes an oil seed salesman preaching a LIA because, you know, sunspots.

A LIA, IF it happens, will reduce temperatures temporarily by .5°C.

Unlike the last LIA, caused by nobody is sure exactly what, there is 40% more CO2 (and more methane) in the atmosphere now. Cooling will be minor and temporary.

Booby’s god Dubyne never ever mentions the warming Arctic and the disappearing sea ice. A false prophet indeed, followed by fruitcakes and nutcases. And Booby.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:47am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:41am: Jovial is a victim of media brainwashing - he can't think for himself & even consider an alternative theory. Sad, but true.

The independent investigation of the truth in ANY matter requires us to consider possible alternative theories/explanations.

It's both tragic and bizzare that Monk is unable to fathom this.

Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:47am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:41am: Jovial is a victim of media brainwashing - he can't think for himself & even consider an alternative theory. Sad, but true. The independent investigation of the truth in ANY matter requires us to consider possible alternative theories/explanations. It's both tragic and bizzare that Monk is unable to fathom this.

Repeating what I wrote above:

It would be nice if there was evidence of an alternative. There is not one in sight however.

That the world has warmed is not in question. It is not due to orbital changes. It is not due to the sun becoming warmer—the sun has  been quiescent for some decades while the world continued to warm.

The concentration of CO2 is increasing.  Spectrometry shows that CO2 and methane (plus some other minor GHGs) absorb infrared photons heading to space.

Any alternative theories need very good evidence to supplant AGW.


And I just love Booby trying to appear superior by claiming I am brainwashed by media, considering he follows an obvious fraud like Dubyne  :D :D :D :D

Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:47am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:41am: Jovial is a victim of media brainwashing - he can't think for himself & even consider an alternative theory. Sad, but true. The independent investigation of the truth in ANY matter requires us to consider possible alternative theories/explanations. It's both tragic and bizzare that Monk is unable to fathom this.

Once the AGW bug bites, it seems to destroy the victim's ability to think rationally.

And, let's face it: the AGW cult is exceptionally good at producing propaganda and lies.

Denialism plain and simple.

Now WHY do people deny AGW?

This topic is like watching ping pong.

;D  ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 12:08pm:

Denialism plain and simple. Now WHY do people deny AGW?

I can't speak for the people who deny AGW, however, I can take a guess.

They probably object to the fact that the AGW cult is so overwhelmingly unscientific and dishonest in their approach.

That, coupled with the fact that there's no reliable, conclusive evidence to show that AGW is real, probably leads a lot of people to just dismiss the theory as nothing more than an educated guess.

As a skeptic, I can see where they're  coming from.

However, I'll continue to keep an open-mind on the subject, as one day it might just be proven to be true.

Today isn't that day, though.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 12:17pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 12:08pm: Denialism plain and simple. Now WHY do people deny AGW? I can't speak for the people who deny AGW, however, I can take a guess. They probably object to the fact that the AGW cult is so overwhelmingly unscientific and dishonest in their approach. That, coupled with the fact that there's no reliable, conclusive evidence to show that AGW is real, probably leads a lot of people to just dismiss the theory as nothing more than an educated guess. As a skeptic, I can see where they're  coming from. However, I'll continue to keep an open-mind on the subject, as one day it might just be proven to be true. Today isn't that day, though.

Actually....that a very true and honest response.

A lot of us can identify with your sentiments Greg.

Only an irrational dhead would have the audacity to ridicule your post.

Unscientific, uh huh.

So you think Dubyne is scientific?

There is a massive amount of science supporting AGW. A consilience of the different branches of science looking at global warming.

GHGs do absorb IR photons, blocking them from escaping to space and so heating the planet. This has been shown by terrestrial and satellite spectrometry. An alternative theory would have to explain away this greenhouse mechanism.

Booby’s LIA is fantasy pure and simple.

AGW is a well supported theory that offers a way to start reducing the warming before it becomes runaway.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Unscientific, uh huh. So you think Dubyne is scientific? There is a massive amount of science supporting AGW. A consilience of the different branches of science looking at global warming. GHGs do absorb IR photons, blocking them from escaping to space and so heating the planet. This has been shown by terrestrial and satellite spectrometry. An alternative theory would have to explain away this greenhouse mechanism. Booby’s LIA is fantasy pure and simple. AGW is a well supported theory that offers a way to start reducing the warming before it becomes runaway.

Nobody has ever said that it isn't well supported.

Let's stick to the science, though, instead of worrying about popularity.

I am not talking popularity. All the scientific evidence points to AGW occurring. There is no real challenge to the theory, no alternative explanation, not orbital changes, not a brighter hotter sun, nothing.

That means we really do need to decarbonise the economy.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 1:03pm:

I am not talking popularity. All the scientific evidence points to AGW occurring. There is no real challenge to the theory, no alternative explanation, not orbital changes, not a brighter hotter sun, nothing. That means we really do need to decarbonise the economy.

Why lie?

Seriously.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 2:18pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 1:03pm: I am not talking popularity. All the scientific evidence points to AGW occurring. There is no real challenge to the theory, no alternative explanation, not orbital changes, not a brighter hotter sun, nothing. That means we really do need to decarbonise the economy. Why lie? Seriously.

Head meet brick wall  ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 1:03pm:

All the scientific evidence points to AGW occurring.

No, it doesn't.  Not even close.  Why must you lie?


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 1:03pm:

There is no real challenge to the theory, no alternative explanation ...

Yes, there is.  Again: why lie?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 10:52pm:

Even a layman can see that the world is warming, just look how nearly all glaciers are retreating, Greenland is losing 200Gtons of ice a year, the Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk dramatically—anyone can find images of the shrinking of the Arctic.

Now link that to CO2 alone.
Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 10:52pm:

Sea levels are rising and when Antarctica starts losing net ice (it is gaining mass more and more slowly) sea level rise will speed up. (At present Antarctica is reducing sea level rise.)

Speculation. did Madam Zara foresee the future for you? Why do you believe in psychics?


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 10:52pm:

There are a couple here who fear AGW so much the have let a lying charlatan convince them we are entering a Little Ice Age because sunspot numbers will reach a minimum. That might temporarily reduce temperatures by .5°C.

And the earth has warmed about 0.94C based on reconstructed "data"from before 1986.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201703.gif

Also the grey areas are those with no data. How do they calculate land temperatures to within 1/100ths of a degree?


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 10:52pm:

If anybody here does not believe or disbelieves AGW

HOW much of the warming is this AGW?


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 10:52pm:

It isn’t easy to think that urgent action is needed

Especially with no data.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 10:52pm:

Even a layman can see that the world is warming, just look how nearly all glaciers are retreating, Greenland is losing 200Gtons of ice a year, the Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk dramatically—anyone can find images of the shrinking of the Arctic. Conservatives fear change but it is not just conservatives that deny AGW. Sea levels are rising and when Antarctica starts losing net ice (it is gaining mass more and more slowly) sea level rise will speed up. (At present Antarctica is reducing sea level rise.) There are a couple here who fear AGW so much the have let a lying charlatan convince them we are entering a Little Ice Age because sunspot numbers will reach a minimum. That might temporarily reduce temperatures by .5°C. This character Dubyne in a video a week or so ago said a lake in Melbourne turning pink was a sign of the Little Ice Age  ::) :) I don’t know. If anybody here does not believe or disbelieves AGW then can you tell WHY? There is time to decarbonise the economy and avoid “catastrophe” so by denying you are making catastrophe certain! The irony of denialism. It isn’t easy to think that urgent action is needed, like people talking themselves into believing war won’t come then a world was happens! But action now will be easier and cheaper than action in 20 years (or whatever) time. I don’t consider deniers are unintelligent just afraid. Or maybe scientists are not conveying the science clearly and plainly enough? Comments?

A consensus of scientists say:

WE are destroying the Earth with AGW…….!!!

The layman:

OK what can we do about it………..???

A consensus of scientists say:

Our employer suggests a (CO2) carbon derivatives market on the stock exchange…..!!!

The layman:

REALLY…………………………………….???

So we can go right on sending CO2 into the atmosphere as long as we pay for it....?

A bit like taxing the air we breathe...........!!!

What about deforestation………!!!

Chemicals going into our creeks, rivers and oceans…!!!

Plastics and litter in our water ways and oceans………..!!!

Ecological impact of bombs and explosives………………!!!

The release of toxic chemicals…………………………………...!!!

What about all those and more………………………………….!!!

A consensus of scientists say:

CO2 is the only pollution that can destroy us, our employer is only focused on that……!!!


The layman:

Who’s your employer………………………..?

A consensus of scientists say:

The oligarchy, the elite, the 1%.

The layman:

OOOhhhhh,………………….I seeeeeeehhhhhhhhhh.

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

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 2:54pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 1:03pm: All the scientific evidence points to AGW occurring. No, it doesn't.  Not even close.  Why must you lie? Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 1:03pm: There is no real challenge to the theory, no alternative explanation ... Yes, there is.  Again: why lie?

No, the scientific evidence points to AGW due to GHGs.

WHAT alternative explanation????

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 5:27pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 2:54pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 1:03pm: All the scientific evidence points to AGW occurring. No, it doesn't.  Not even close.  Why must you lie? Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 1:03pm: There is no real challenge to the theory, no alternative explanation ... Yes, there is.  Again: why lie? No, the scientific evidence points to AGW due to GHGs. WHAT alternative explanation????

And there we have it, people: a perfect example of how AGW cult members are completey closed-minded.

It's a worry.

So you have no alternative explanation. thought as much. You are a denier Gregg, dunno why but you are.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 5:34pm:

So you have no alternative explanation. thought as much. You are a denier Gregg, dunno why but you are.

We have a denier here, people.

Come take a look.

For those who missed the denier's question:

"WHAT alternative explanation????"

Dear oh dear.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 5:36pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 5:34pm: So you have no alternative explanation. thought as much. You are a denier Gregg, dunno why but you are. We have a denier here, people. Come take a look. For those who missed the denier's question: "WHAT alternative explanation????" Dear oh dear.

F.F.S  Heres  me in complete agreement  with GREG

Were that idiot Tim Flannery  still living on the coast  ;D ;D ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 5:36pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 5:34pm: So you have no alternative explanation. thought as much. You are a denier Gregg, dunno why but you are. We have a denier here, people. Come take a look. For those who missed the denier's question: "WHAT alternative explanation????" Dear oh dear.

F.F.S  Heres  me in complete agreement  with GREG

Were that idiot Tim Flannery  still living on the coast  ;D ;D ;D ;D

bwood1946 wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 5:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 5:36pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 5:34pm: So you have no alternative explanation. thought as much. You are a denier Gregg, dunno why but you are. We have a denier here, people. Come take a look. For those who missed the denier's question: "WHAT alternative explanation????" Dear oh dear. F.F.S  Heres  me in complete agreement  with GREG Were that idiot Tim Flannery  still living on the coast

This is the problem I have with the AGW cult members: they refuse to acknowledge alternative explanations for climate change.

In all my life, I have never come across such a closed-minded group.

"WHAT alternative explanation????"

Can you believe they would ask such a question?

It appears that they completely reject the idea of natural variability, for example.

In that case, are they claiming that climate change never existed until humans inhabited the planet?

I'm curious.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 5:27pm:

No, the scientific evidence points to AGW due to GHGs.

You mean like Meehle et al 2004? GHG's are anthropogenic. 
Like methane - apparently no natural cause like termites.
Like water vapour - I'm not sure how man makes that. He drinks water, he sweats water - seems natural.
Like CO2 - apparently plants do not emit CO2.

Is that the science you talk about.

Meehle is qoted from one of your favourite websites - Skeptical Science.

Another “natural variation” nut.

Natural variation does not cut it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 5:53pm:

Another “natural variation” nut. Natural variation does not cut it.

Please quote the scientific paper that proves natural variability "does not cut it".


You do have the science don't you?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 5:53pm:

Another “natural variation” nut. Natural variation does not cut it.

And here we go again.

The cult member asked for an alternative explanation, and I gave him one.

He then immediately assumes that I support that particular theory (and calls me a "nut").

He also immediately dismissies it as a possible cause.

Can everyone see why I have such a problem with these closed-minded cult members?

To refresh the cult member's memory, you asked me:

"WHAT alternative explanation????"

I gave you one. I didn't say I supported it, and I didn't say it was proven.

You also said:

"All the scientific evidence points to AGW occurring".

That is a complete and utter lie.

Liars like you are not worthy of my time.

Good, go away then.

You had no explanation at all for the increasing global temperature. You never give any specifics when poo pooing an explanation of AGW theory.

You are a denier and that is that.

WHY you deny AGW is a question we obviously will not get an answer to.

lee wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 5:56pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 5:53pm: Another “natural variation” nut. Natural variation does not cut it. Please quote the scientific paper that proves natural variability "does not cut it". You do have the science don't you?

This should be good ...

lee wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 5:56pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 5:53pm: Another “natural variation” nut. Natural variation does not cut it. Please quote the scientific paper that proves natural variability "does not cut it".

Ask the cult member if climate change existed before humans.

;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 6:14pm:

You had no explanation at all for the increasing global temperature.

Visible light. Water heats slower than the air. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 10:52pm:

Even a layman can see that the world is warming, just look how nearly all glaciers are retreating, Greenland is losing 200Gtons of ice a year, the Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk dramatically—anyone can find images of the shrinking of the Arctic. Conservatives fear change but it is not just conservatives that deny AGW. Sea levels are rising and when Antarctica starts losing net ice (it is gaining mass more and more slowly) sea level rise will speed up. (At present Antarctica is reducing sea level rise.) There are a couple here who fear AGW so much the have let a lying charlatan convince them we are entering a Little Ice Age because sunspot numbers will reach a minimum. That might temporarily reduce temperatures by .5°C. This character Dubyne in a video a week or so ago said a lake in Melbourne turning pink was a sign of the Little Ice Age  ::) :) I don’t know. If anybody here does not believe or disbelieves AGW then can you tell WHY? There is time to decarbonise the economy and avoid “catastrophe” so by denying you are making catastrophe certain! The irony of denialism. It isn’t easy to think that urgent action is needed, like people talking themselves into believing war won’t come then a world was happens! But action now will be easier and cheaper than action in 20 years (or whatever) time. I don’t consider deniers are unintelligent just afraid. Or maybe scientists are not conveying the science clearly and plainly enough? Comments?

The A in AGW (human causation) is not established. Climate change correlates with a whole load of things besides CO2. None of it is ever considered by the activists because none of the other possible causes have the political dimension of 'human causation'.

Not only that, the reasoning that attributes GW to human is very speculative and is based on mostly models that have the very assumption of human causation (human Co2) built into them.

Also, the AGW activists are so vehement and fascists about it that it makes the whole thing as suspicious as Hillary, Safe Schools, gender studies, etc. It's an overwhelmingly political agitation, rather than a scientific one because the politics controls wealth, power, etc.

I am only slightly facetious when I say that neo-Marxism causes AGW.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 6:14pm:

Good, go away then. You had no explanation at all for the increasing global temperature. You never give any specifics when poo pooing an explanation of AGW theory. You are a denier and that is that. WHY you deny AGW is a question we obviously will not get an answer to.

I don't deny it.

I've told you this several times.

You are without doubt the most closed-minded, dishonest person I have ever come across.

The cult has destroyed your mind.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 10:52pm: Even a layman can see that the world is warming, just look how nearly all glaciers are retreating, Greenland is losing 200Gtons of ice a year, the Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk dramatically—anyone can find images of the shrinking of the Arctic. Conservatives fear change but it is not just conservatives that deny AGW. Sea levels are rising and when Antarctica starts losing net ice (it is gaining mass more and more slowly) sea level rise will speed up. (At present Antarctica is reducing sea level rise.) There are a couple here who fear AGW so much the have let a lying charlatan convince them we are entering a Little Ice Age because sunspot numbers will reach a minimum. That might temporarily reduce temperatures by .5°C. This character Dubyne in a video a week or so ago said a lake in Melbourne turning pink was a sign of the Little Ice Age  ::) :) I don’t know. If anybody here does not believe or disbelieves AGW then can you tell WHY? There is time to decarbonise the economy and avoid “catastrophe” so by denying you are making catastrophe certain! The irony of denialism. It isn’t easy to think that urgent action is needed, like people talking themselves into believing war won’t come then a world was happens! But action now will be easier and cheaper than action in 20 years (or whatever) time. I don’t consider deniers are unintelligent just afraid. Or maybe scientists are not conveying the science clearly and plainly enough? Comments? The A in AGW (human causation) is not established. Climate change correlates with a whole load of things besides CO2. None of it is ever considered by the activists because none of the other possible causes have the political dimension of 'human causation'. Not only that, the reasoning that attributes GW to human is very speculative and is based on mostly models that have the very assumption of human causation (human Co2) built into them. Also, the AGW activists are so vehement and fascists about it that it makes the whole thing as suspicious as Hillary, Safe Schools, gender studies, etc. It's an overwhelmingly political agitation, rather than a scientific one because the politics controls wealth, power, etc. I am only slightly facetious when I say that neo-Marxism causes AGW.

Good post.  Excellent, in fact.

Our resident denier of alternative explanations, and life-time cult member, won't have any of it though.

He'll stick his fingers in his ears and call you a denier.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 10:52pm: Even a layman can see that the world is warming, just look how nearly all glaciers are retreating, Greenland is losing 200Gtons of ice a year, the Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk dramatically—anyone can find images of the shrinking of the Arctic. Conservatives fear change but it is not just conservatives that deny AGW. Sea levels are rising and when Antarctica starts losing net ice (it is gaining mass more and more slowly) sea level rise will speed up. (At present Antarctica is reducing sea level rise.) There are a couple here who fear AGW so much the have let a lying charlatan convince them we are entering a Little Ice Age because sunspot numbers will reach a minimum. That might temporarily reduce temperatures by .5°C. This character Dubyne in a video a week or so ago said a lake in Melbourne turning pink was a sign of the Little Ice Age  ::) :) I don’t know. If anybody here does not believe or disbelieves AGW then can you tell WHY? There is time to decarbonise the economy and avoid “catastrophe” so by denying you are making catastrophe certain! The irony of denialism. It isn’t easy to think that urgent action is needed, like people talking themselves into believing war won’t come then a world was happens! But action now will be easier and cheaper than action in 20 years (or whatever) time. I don’t consider deniers are unintelligent just afraid. Or maybe scientists are not conveying the science clearly and plainly enough? Comments? The A in AGW (human causation) is not established. Climate change correlates with a whole load of things besides CO2. None of it is ever considered by the activists because none of the other possible causes have the political dimension of 'human causation'. Not only that, the reasoning that attributes GW to human is very speculative and is based on mostly models that have the very assumption of human causation (human Co2) built into them. Also, the AGW activists are so vehement and fascists about it that it makes the whole thing as suspicious as Hillary, Safe Schools, gender studies, etc. It's an overwhelmingly political agitation, rather than a scientific one because the politics controls wealth, power, etc. I am only slightly facetious when I say that neo-Marxism causes AGW.

Actually, Sore End, proof of AGW needs no models or nothing. Chemistry to prove the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from human sources, i.e. burning fossil fuels, and spectroscopy to show GHGs absorbing IR photons.

But stick to your version of fantasy land.

See?  I told you!

Yeah, you said there was nothing there.

You were wrong. You were and are a denier. I don’t know why but I would like to.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:

The A in AGW (human causation) is not established. Climate change correlates with a whole load of things besides CO2. None of it is ever considered by the activists because none of the other possible causes have the political dimension of 'human causation'. Not only that, the reasoning that attributes GW to human is very speculative and is based on mostly models that have the very assumption of human causation (human Co2) built into them. Also, the AGW activists are so vehement and fascists about it that it makes the whole thing as suspicious as Hillary, Safe Schools, gender studies, etc. It's an overwhelmingly political agitation, rather than a scientific one because the politics controls wealth, power, etc. I am only slightly facetious when I say that neo-Marxism causes AGW.

[smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Proof of AGW does not rely on models, just chemistry and spectrometry.

But dream on, deniers  :D :D :D

Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:47am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:41am: Jovial is a victim of media brainwashing - he can't think for himself & even consider an alternative theory. Sad, but true. The independent investigation of the truth in ANY matter requires us to consider possible alternative theories/explanations. It's both tragic and bizzare that Monk is unable to fathom this.

Hi Lisa,
Jovial says he has a BSc but I doubt it -
as he doesn't know the difference between
a scientific law & a scientific theory.

AGW is a theory.
Mini Ice Age prediction is a theory.

They both have quite a bit of strong evidence.

There is no evidence and only nonsense in the LIA crap from Dubyne.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that explains some observed phenomena.

A scientific law just summarises information, does not try to explain it.

You are a clown, Booby.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:15pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:58am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:47am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:41am: Jovial is a victim of media brainwashing - he can't think for himself & even consider an alternative theory. Sad, but true. The independent investigation of the truth in ANY matter requires us to consider possible alternative theories/explanations. It's both tragic and bizzare that Monk is unable to fathom this. Hi Lisa, Jovial says he has a BSc but I doubt it - as he doesn't know the difference between a scientific law & a scientific theory. AGW is a theory. Mini Ice Age prediction is a theory. They both have quite a bit of strong evidence.

Jovial doesn't understand what 'evidence' is, though.

Keep talking clowns. I am having a good laugh at your sillyness.

Mini Ice Age prediction is a theory.


Nope, the world is warming not cooling.


No evidence has been produced to support the LIA nonsense.

A fox “flash frozen” after falling through thin ice??? The Danube is made of liquid nitrogen?

A lake in Melbourne turns pinks and that is evidence of a LIA? ahahahahahahaha how fricking STUPID!

Sheer nonsense.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

Mini Ice Age prediction is a theory. Nope, the world is warming not cooling. No evidence has been produced to support the LIA nonsense. A fix “flash frozen” after falling through thin ice??? The Danube is made of liquid nitrogen? Sheer nonsense.

The Ice Age Theory was never scientific consensus in the 1970's as climate change deniers make it out to be. Propaganda.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:19pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:15pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:58am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:47am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:41am: Jovial is a victim of media brainwashing - he can't think for himself & even consider an alternative theory. Sad, but true. The independent investigation of the truth in ANY matter requires us to consider possible alternative theories/explanations. It's both tragic and bizzare that Monk is unable to fathom this. Hi Lisa, Jovial says he has a BSc but I doubt it - as he doesn't know the difference between a scientific law & a scientific theory. AGW is a theory. Mini Ice Age prediction is a theory. They both have quite a bit of strong evidence. Jovial doesn't understand what 'evidence' is, though.

Yes Greg, you're right.

His last post proves that.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

proof of AGW needs no models or nothing.

Even proof it seems. ;)
Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

and spectroscopy to show GHGs absorbing IR photons.

Does spectroscopy show warming?
Does it show less IR actually reaching the earth? CO2 does have the same effect both ways I assume?
Less IR reaching the earth would mean less reflected? Seems like a nil sum game.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:19pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:15pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:58am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:47am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:41am: Jovial is a victim of media brainwashing - he can't think for himself & even consider an alternative theory. Sad, but true. The independent investigation of the truth in ANY matter requires us to consider possible alternative theories/explanations. It's both tragic and bizzare that Monk is unable to fathom this. Hi Lisa, Jovial says he has a BSc but I doubt it - as he doesn't know the difference between a scientific law & a scientific theory. AGW is a theory. Mini Ice Age prediction is a theory. They both have quite a bit of strong evidence. Jovial doesn't understand what 'evidence' is, though.

David DuByne is only a messenger -
he relies upon the global cooling theories of many scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ocCh5yDaqs

30 Top Scientists Predict Global Cooling 2015-2050

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:19pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:15pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:58am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:47am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:41am: Jovial is a victim of media brainwashing - he can't think for himself & even consider an alternative theory. Sad, but true. The independent investigation of the truth in ANY matter requires us to consider possible alternative theories/explanations. It's both tragic and bizzare that Monk is unable to fathom this. Hi Lisa, Jovial says he has a BSc but I doubt it - as he doesn't know the difference between a scientific law & a scientific theory. AGW is a theory. Mini Ice Age prediction is a theory. They both have quite a bit of strong evidence. Jovial doesn't understand what 'evidence' is, though. Yes Greg, you're right. His last post proves that.

OMG—Gregg you believe the Danube is made of liquid nitrogen?

The mechanism for AGW is known. We know glaciers are retreating and the Arctic is warming and sea ice there is decreasing radically. Greenland is losing like 200 gigatons of ice every year. The Antarctic is still gaining mass but less and less every year, within the lifespan of many here the Antarctic will add to rather than subtract from sea level rise.

Bushfires/wildfires start earlier and earlier and are becoming bigger and bigger and more destructive. There were HUGE wildfires in Chile last SH summer, the US and Russia will suffer huge wildfires this NH spring and summer.

With the mechanism of AGW known denialism is stupid. Stubborn people insisting “It is NOT getting hotter!” but. . .it is.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

Actually, Sore End, proof of AGW needs no models or nothing. Chemistry to prove the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from human sources, i.e. burning fossil fuels, and spectroscopy to show GHGs absorbing IR photons. But stick to your version of fantasy land.

The extra CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity is NOT proof of AGW.

Nobody fully understand how the climate works. People latch on the identifiable aspects of human activity and latch onto that. It allows them to pretend they fully understand as well as thereby letting them off the hook about the vast aspects of the climate they do not understand.

One example - and I do not mean it as a trump card - is under-water volcanos. Nobody know where they all are, nobody knows how active they are, nobody knows how much CO2 they emit into the oceans.

Years ago we used to hear about the 'forcing' of atmospheric CO2: a little extra CO2 (caused by humans) was 'forcing' all the other atmospheric greenhouse gases to elevate their evil influence. This theory coincided with the sloshing of the Lord of the Rings trilogy in the public conscience - one ring to rule them all, one anthropogenic trace gas to rule them all. 

Ridiculous is the only word.

I am not arguing against clean air, water, I am not against renewable energy in principle. But the AGW scare is just not credible. Energy black-out and people not having cheap and reliable energy because of this stupid scare is criminal.

Another post from the cult member proving that he doesn't know what 'evidence' means.

This is quite amusing.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:35pm:

The mechanism for AGW is known. We know glaciers are retreating and the Arctic is warming and sea ice there is decreasing radically. Greenland is losing like 200 gigatons of ice every year. The Antarctic is still gaining mass but less and less every year, within the lifespan of many here the Antarctic will add to rather than subtract from sea level rise. Bushfires/wildfires start earlier and earlier and are becoming bigger and bigger and more destructive. There were HUGE wildfires in Chile last SH summer, the US and Russia will suffer huge wildfires this NH spring and summer. With the mechanism of AGW known denialism is stupid. Stubborn people insisting “It is NOT getting hotter!” but. . .it is.

The mechanism of AGW is not known.

That is our point of contention.  I do not know how it works - nor do you. Nor anyone.

That is the point. It is a hope, not a fact by people like you.

When that extra CO2 (and methane) is shown to be absorbing IR photons leaving for space, trapping them here, then we KNOW that the extra CO2 is causing AGW.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:37pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 6:41pm: Actually, Sore End, proof of AGW needs no models or nothing. Chemistry to prove the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from human sources, i.e. burning fossil fuels, and spectroscopy to show GHGs absorbing IR photons. But stick to your version of fantasy land. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity is NOT proof of AGW.

Correct.

It's proof that there's extra CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity.

Nothing more.

Cult members don't understand this.

Of course, there is extra CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity:  if humans had remained hunter-gatherers and never developed agriculture, the world would be cooler today. Likewise, had humans never existed the world would be cooler.

When that CO2 is shown to be absorbing photons of IR that were heading for space then we have good evidence for the AGW theory. Spectrometry both terrestrial and satellite does show the GHGs absorbing IR.

So the AGW theory holds up very well.

AiA wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:25pm:

The Ice Age Theory was never scientific consensus in the 1970's as climate change deniers make it out to be.

Whoever said it was a consensus? It is only AGW that relies on some kind of consensus.

"Cooling Since 1940, Forecasts for Continued Cooling/Ice Age  -
1. Kukla, 1972
2. Ellsaesser , 1974
3. Cimorelli and House, 1974
4. Ellsaesser, 1975
5. Agee, 1980

Some of 285 papers

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.NkQ9zva
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.SxQ2cmJb.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.VAPpsb

Cook et al shows 65 papers claiming more than 50% warming out of over 4,000 papers. Some 97%

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:39pm:

When that extra CO2 (and methane) is shown to be absorbing IR leaving for space, trapping them here, then we KNOW that the extra CO2 is causing AGW.

If we knew for sure that the only cause of GW was that extra CO2 absorbing IR, yes.

But we don't Nobody does. It is a conjecture made in ignorance of very other conjecture that can be made.


Nobody understand how the climate works.
Therefore nobody can make definitive pronouncements about what makes it go this way or that.

It is an irreproducable, un-replicatable system so you cannot experiment. It is all modeling, guesses and conjectures with a massive dose of political push.

Being for or against AGW is largely a political stance, not an objective, scientific one - simply because there is no apolitical, scientific understanding that can say either way.

AGW is politics, not science.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:46pm:

When that CO2 is shown to be absorbing photons of IR that were heading for space then we have good evidence for the AGW theory. Spectrometry both terrestrial and satellite does show the GHGs absorbing IR. So the AGW theory holds up very well.

lee wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:31pm:

Does spectroscopy show warming? Does it show less IR actually reaching the earth? CO2 does have the same effect both ways I assume? Less IR reaching the earth would mean less reflected? Seems like a nil sum game.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 8:55pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:39pm: When that extra CO2 (and methane) is shown to be absorbing IR leaving for space, trapping them here, then we KNOW that the extra CO2 is causing AGW. If we knew for sure that the only cause of GW was that extra CO2 absorbing IR, yes. But we don't Nobody does. It is a conjecture made in ignorance of very other conjecture that can be made. Nobody understand how the climate works. Therefore nobody can make definitive pronouncements about what makes it go this way or that. It is an irreproducable, un-replicatable system so you cannot experiment. It is all modeling, guesses and conjectures with a massive dose of political push. Being for or against AGW is largely a political stance, not an objective, scientific one - simply because there is no apolitical, scientific understanding that can say either way. AGW is politics, not science.

As I said before, proof that GHGs cause AGW does not rely on models, just chemistry and spectroscopy.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 9:49pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 8:55pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:39pm: When that extra CO2 (and methane) is shown to be absorbing IR leaving for space, trapping them here, then we KNOW that the extra CO2 is causing AGW. If we knew for sure that the only cause of GW was that extra CO2 absorbing IR, yes. But we don't Nobody does. It is a conjecture made in ignorance of very other conjecture that can be made. Nobody understand how the climate works. Therefore nobody can make definitive pronouncements about what makes it go this way or that. It is an irreproducable, un-replicatable system so you cannot experiment. It is all modeling, guesses and conjectures with a massive dose of political push. Being for or against AGW is largely a political stance, not an objective, scientific one - simply because there is no apolitical, scientific understanding that can say either way. AGW is politics, not science. As I said before, proof that GHGs cause AGW does not rely on models, just chemistry and spectroscopy.

Which you do not understand. Be honest.

Yes, I have a good idea.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 9:49pm:

As I said before, proof that GHGs cause AGW does not rely on models, just chemistry and spectroscopy.

Please quote the peer-reviewed paper that says spectroscopy shows AGW. What is the reference period with which it compares?

How does the chemistry prove AGW? What is that peer-reviewed paper?

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 8:55pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:39pm: When that extra CO2 (and methane) is shown to be absorbing IR leaving for space, trapping them here, then we KNOW that the extra CO2 is causing AGW. If we knew for sure that the only cause of GW was that extra CO2 absorbing IR, yes. But we don't Nobody does. It is a conjecture made in ignorance of very other conjecture that can be made. Nobody understand how the climate works. Therefore nobody can make definitive pronouncements about what makes it go this way or that. It is an irreproducable, un-replicatable system so you cannot experiment. It is all modeling, guesses and conjectures with a massive dose of political push. Being for or against AGW is largely a political stance, not an objective, scientific one - simply because there is no apolitical, scientific understanding that can say either way. AGW is politics, not science.

OK, Sore End, here is the uhhhhh “politics” of AGW  :D :D :D :D

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:31pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:19pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:15pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:58am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:47am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:41am: Jovial is a victim of media brainwashing - he can't think for himself & even consider an alternative theory. Sad, but true. The independent investigation of the truth in ANY matter requires us to consider possible alternative theories/explanations. It's both tragic and bizzare that Monk is unable to fathom this. Hi Lisa, Jovial says he has a BSc but I doubt it - as he doesn't know the difference between a scientific law & a scientific theory. AGW is a theory. Mini Ice Age prediction is a theory. They both have quite a bit of strong evidence. Jovial doesn't understand what 'evidence' is, though. David DuByne is only a messenger - he relies upon the global cooling theories of many scientists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ocCh5yDaqs 30 Top Scientists Predict Global Cooling 2015-2050

Dubyne is a fraud!

Can you name five of the supposed 30 “top” scientists Booby?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:41am:

Jovial is a victim of media brainwashing - he can't think for himself & even consider an alternative theory.

I just love this statement by Booby!

Media brainwashing. Yeah, I always quote ACA etc as evidence of AGW  :D :D :D Nah, I quote scientific papers, papers that go right over Booby’s pointy head  ;D ;D ;D

I can’t think for myself, oh boy that is a beauty! Booby can never refute a single critique I make of the ridiculous Dubyne videos he keeps posting here tho nobody views them. The flash frozen fox—no answer when I point out that a river with a very thin layer of ice, that the fox broke through, cannot be cold enough to flash freeze a mosquito let alone a fox! No answer at all. (If the ice was really thick and the river really really cold the fox would not have broken through the ice!) But I can’t think for myself  :D :D :D :D

There are no credible alternative theories that explain why the globe is heating up.

Not orbital changes. Not the sun being more active—it has been quiescent for like 50 years! So WHAT can be heating the globe? Is there more radioactive fission in the earths mantle? Nope, AGW, radiative forcings, is the only possible theory to explain the warming of the globe.

Ask yourself this: since the AGW theory is likely the explanation for the heating of the globe even with a quiescent sun—what is going to happen when the sun enters, as it will at some stage, its active state?

Also, what Booby can’t bring himself to evaluate and answer: with 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than at the last LIA—what will a new LIA look like? Come on Booby, you seem to claim, by trying to bag me, that you can think for yourself. So, what will a new LIA, if one miraculously appeared, look like? Would we even notice it apart from readings on instruments?

And Dubyne L I E S, he lies a LOT! He claimed record cold and snow in Europe in April. I checked weather records and agricultural sites. There was no such record cold and snow! A clear lie, just like the “flash frozen” fox, just like the pink lake. Complete crap.

AiA wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:45pm:

Of course, there is extra CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity:  if humans had remained hunter-gatherers and never developed agriculture, the world would be cooler today. Likewise, had humans never existed the world would be cooler.

Yep there is extra C02 in the atmosphere due to mans emissions but its so small it doesn't even register compared to the natural CO2 budget.

Notice the sharp rise in fossil fuel CO2 emissions after 2000.

After 2000 fossil fuel emissions were 3 times the amount of fossil fuel emissions in the prior decade to 2000, that is 3 times as much fossil fuel emission went into our atmosphere after 2000 than the decade before 2000.

But the average yearly increase after 2000 just like the decade prior to 2000, average increase in CO2 remains more or less steady at 2.1ppm per year.

Fossil fuel CO2 emissions at 2.3% of the total CO2 natural emissions are insignificant and get lost in the noise.

That's why the average yearly increase of CO2 has remained steady at 2.1ppm per year even though fossil fuel emissions have shot through the roof.

Yes fossil fuels emissions contribute but the contribution is small at 2.3% of the total amount of natural CO2 that is emitted.

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

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

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 10:34pm:

OK, Sore End, here is the uhhhhh “politics” of AGW  :D :D :D :D http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html[url][/url]

Your link just takes me to https://www.nature.com/

What's the title of your article?

As for the correlation of temperature and CO2, it is well known that its a weak correlation at best and even the high priests of AGW the IPCC agree that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more it diminishes its greenhouse effect.

http://i65.tinypic.com/vyld92.jpg



The diminishing % effectiveness of CO2 as a GHG

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1493003769/0#0

Try this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

Hey Sore End, if you really are a psychiatrist then you may be able to work out why so many deny AGW or even any change to the climate. Be interested in what you have to say about that. Start with yourself: why do YOU deny AGW?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 10:08am:

Hey Sore End, if you really are a psychiatrist then you may be able to work out why so many deny AGW or even any change to the climate. Be interested in what you have to say about that. Start with yourself: why do YOU deny AGW?

Stop being a tool.

The only thing the "deniers" as you have labelled them deny is that

MANS EMISSIONS ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LATEST WARMING CYCLE ON EARTH.

That's what the "deniers" as you have labelled them deny.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 10:01am:

Try this: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

This lot is obviously on the AGW gravy train.

But they do say that their understanding of the hydrological cycle isn't very good, at least they acknowledge that.

So with water vapour being responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth, these scientists who wrote that garbage don't understand very much then do they.........LOL................. ;D

Water vapor and the GHGs block IR from leaving the atmosphere. Why do you deny AGW, Ajax?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 10:21am:

Water vapor and the GHGs block IR from leaving the atmosphere. Why do you deny AGW, Ajax?

I don't deny that.........!

But water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas and is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth.

http://i68.tinypic.com/qssivs.jpg

The question is why do you deny that the Earth has warmed and cooled while the CO2 levels have remained more or less constant.

http://i63.tinypic.com/hskznq.jpg

Water vapor is a reinforcement. As more CO2 warms the globe more water vapor enters the atmosphere.

Water vapor does not accumulate like CO2 and CH4. That is why it is a reinforcer not a GHG.

Regardless—as more and more IR is absorbed and not emitted to space the globe warms up. This has been demonstrated and satellites continue monitoring this. Denying this does not make sense at all.

Water vapor blocks a lot of IR radiation. Increasing CO2 and CH4 blocks the space in the spectrum water vapor leaves for IR.

Does not mean science knows everything—the role of clouds, for example, is far from clear but the basic tenet of AGW theory is rock solid.

Saying “AGW is just a theory” is a sneer. AGW is a theory. Every discovery in science is a theory. Some people think a theory once proven becomes a scientific law. Wrong! A scientific law, like Newton’s Laws of Motion, just describes what happens. Newton could systematise Kepler’s laws but neither said WHY things move like they do.

So AGW is a theory but a theory with rock solid evidence behind it. That still leaves it a theory, just like the theory of evolution tho genetics now shows us how evolution works.

The atomic theory of matter is still a theory even tho we can create fission and fusion bombs using it!

Scientists don’t look to prove a theory. They look to disprove theories. If they can disprove a theory then a better theory needs to be formulated and science advances.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 10:54am:

Water vapor is a reinforcement. As more CO2 warms the globe more water vapor enters the atmosphere. Water vapor does not accumulate like CO2 and CH4. That is why it is a reinforcer not a GHG. Regardless—as more and more IR is absorbed and not emitted to space the globe warms up. This has been demonstrated and satellites continue monitoring this. Denying this does not make sense at all. Water vapor blocks a lot of IR radiation. Increasing CO2 and CH4 blocks the space in the spectrum water vapor leaves for IR. Does not mean science knows everything—the role of clouds, for example, is far from clear but the basic tenet of AGW theory is rock solid. Saying “AGW is just a theory” is a sneer. AGW is a theory. Every discovery in science is a theory. Some people think a theory once proven becomes a scientific law. Wrong! A scientific law, like Newton’s Laws of Motion, just describes what happens. Newton could systematise Kepler’s laws but neither said WHY things move like they do. So AGW is a theory but a theory with rock solid evidence behind it. That still leaves it a theory, just like the theory of evolution tho genetics now shows us how evolution works. The atomic theory of matter is still a theory even tho we can create fission and fusion bombs using it! Scientists don’t look to prove a theory. They look to disprove theories. If they can disprove a theory then a better theory needs to be formulated and science advances.

So basically your denying that water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas here on Earth.

The life cycle of CO2 molecules is about 5 to 8 years in the atmosphere.

As more CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere its greenhouse effect diminishes, even the IPCC acknowledge this.

That your AGW is rock solid, computer models are the only legs you have to stand on and as the last 26 years of observations have PROVEN to us all they were just plain WRONG.

Warming by the end of this century

IPCC computer models  projected warming……… +2.78° C / Century

Observations the last 25 years………………………….. +1.01° C / Century

http://i66.tinypic.com/hrwj9c.png


The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds (Richard Feynman)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8habYTfHU

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 8:55pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:39pm: When that extra CO2 (and methane) is shown to be absorbing IR leaving for space, trapping them here, then we KNOW that the extra CO2 is causing AGW. If we knew for sure that the only cause of GW was that extra CO2 absorbing IR, yes. But we don't Nobody does. It is a conjecture made in ignorance of very other conjecture that can be made. Nobody understand how the climate works. Therefore nobody can make definitive pronouncements about what makes it go this way or that. It is an irreproducable, un-replicatable system so you cannot experiment. It is all modeling, guesses and conjectures with a massive dose of political push. Being for or against AGW is largely a political stance, not an objective, scientific one - simply because there is no apolitical, scientific understanding that can say either way. AGW is politics, not science.

Correct.

Why do you deny AGW, Greg?

Ummmmm this:


Quote:

The life cycle of CO2 molecules is about 5 to 8 years in the atmosphere.

is very wrong! Even methane lasts longer than that and it is much more shortlived than CO2! Wherever you got that from is lying!

And not models but chemistry and spectroscopy support the AGW theory.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:

The A in AGW (human causation) is not established. Climate change correlates with a whole load of things besides CO2. None of it is ever considered by the activists because none of the other possible causes have the political dimension of 'human causation'. Not only that, the reasoning that attributes GW to human is very speculative and is based on mostly models that have the very assumption of human causation (human Co2) built into them. Also, the AGW activists are so vehement and fascists about it that it makes the whole thing as suspicious as Hillary, Safe Schools, gender studies, etc. It's an overwhelmingly political agitation, rather than a scientific one because the politics controls wealth, power, etc. I am only slightly facetious when I say that neo-Marxism causes AGW.

[smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 10:54am:

Water vapor is a reinforcement. As more CO2 warms the globe more water vapor enters the atmosphere. Water vapor does not accumulate like CO2 and CH4. That is why it is a reinforcer not a GHG. Regardless—as more and more IR is absorbed and not emitted to space the globe warms up. This has been demonstrated and satellites continue monitoring this. Denying this does not make sense at all. Water vapor blocks a lot of IR radiation. Increasing CO2 and CH4 blocks the space in the spectrum water vapor leaves for IR. Does not mean science knows everything—the role of clouds, for example, is far from clear but the basic tenet of AGW theory is rock solid. Saying “AGW is just a theory” is a sneer. AGW is a theory. Every discovery in science is a theory. Some people think a theory once proven becomes a scientific law. Wrong! A scientific law, like Newton’s Laws of Motion, just describes what happens. Newton could systematise Kepler’s laws but neither said WHY things move like they do. So AGW is a theory but a theory with rock solid evidence behind it. That still leaves it a theory, just like the theory of evolution tho genetics now shows us how evolution works. The atomic theory of matter is still a theory even tho we can create fission and fusion bombs using it! Scientists don’t look to prove a theory. They look to disprove theories. If they can disprove a theory then a better theory needs to be formulated and science advances.

I am glad I've got you to think about AGW as a theory.

We're making some progress now.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 11:24am:

Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 6:25pm: The A in AGW (human causation) is not established. Climate change correlates with a whole load of things besides CO2. None of it is ever considered by the activists because none of the other possible causes have the political dimension of 'human causation'. Not only that, the reasoning that attributes GW to human is very speculative and is based on mostly models that have the very assumption of human causation (human Co2) built into them. Also, the AGW activists are so vehement and fascists about it that it makes the whole thing as suspicious as Hillary, Safe Schools, gender studies, etc. It's an overwhelmingly political agitation, rather than a scientific one because the politics controls wealth, power, etc. I am only slightly facetious when I say that neo-Marxism causes AGW. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Gregg like Booby thinks repeating past posts gives them more authenticity and weight. Nope.

Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 12:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 12:17pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 12:08pm: Denialism plain and simple. Now WHY do people deny AGW? I can't speak for the people who deny AGW, however, I can take a guess. They probably object to the fact that the AGW cult is so overwhelmingly unscientific and dishonest in their approach. That, coupled with the fact that there's no reliable, conclusive evidence to show that AGW is real, probably leads a lot of people to just dismiss the theory as nothing more than an educated guess. As a skeptic, I can see where they're  coming from. However, I'll continue to keep an open-mind on the subject, as one day it might just be proven to be true. Today isn't that day, though. Actually....that a very true and honest response. A lot of us can identify with your sentiments Greg. Only an irrational dhead would have the audacity to ridicule your post.

[smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 11:24am:

Ummmmm this: Quote: The life cycle of CO2 molecules is about 5 to 8 years in the atmosphere. is very wrong! Even methane lasts longer than that and it is much more shortlived than CO2! Wherever you got that from is lying! And not models but chemistry and spectroscopy support the AGW theory.

You mean its like the Himalayas would all be gone by 2035....???

From here,

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

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 11:24am:

Ummmmm this: Quote: The life cycle of CO2 molecules is about 5 to 8 years in the atmosphere. is very wrong! Even methane lasts longer than that and it is much more shortlived than CO2! Wherever you got that from is lying! And not models but chemistry and spectroscopy support the AGW theory.

Show me where.............???

The Nature article I linked earlier somewhere in these threads.

For an easier to read explanation:

https://skepticalscience.com/Quantifying-the-human-contribution-to-global-warming.html

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 11:34am:

The Nature article I linked earlier somewhere in these threads. For an easier to read explanation: https://skepticalscience.com/Quantifying-the-human-contribution-to-global-warming.html

Your asking me to trust that cartoonist over at the skeptical science blog.

This man wrote John Cook et al trying to prove the scientific consensus that AGW is real, his paper was found to be fraudulent and he was laughed out of the scientific community.

Ok so I went over and had a look, I found nothing surprising he just carries on as though mans emissions of CO2 are SOLELY responsible for the current warming.

Please supply a credible source.............!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 10:34pm:

OK, Sore End, here is the uhhhhh “politics” of AGW  :D :D :D :D http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

"Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred"

Inferences are now proof? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 11:34am:

For an easier to read explanation: https://skepticalscience.com/Quantifying-the-human-contribution-to-global-warmin...

You do realise that his Fig1 of the ice core data is gone? The reason being that they have realised the ice core data is problematic.

You still haven't answered the question of the downward IR. Why it isn't affected by CO2?

" The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation"

Why doesn't SKS include downwelling IR in its narrative?

"Radiation from the Sun, which is more popularly known as sunlight, is a mixture of electromagnetic waves ranging from infrared (IR) to ultraviolet rays (UV). It of course includes visible light, which is in between IR and UV in the electromagnetic spectrum. "

https://www.universetoday.com/60065/radiation-from-the-sun/

You would think if Skeptical Science was doing science they would do the complete bit; wouldn't you?

I think they are doing the global warming bit.

Amazing, isn’t it? The sun has been quiescent during the last half century yet the globe has heated! Must be magic, innit?

Well I'm a skeptic, not a denier. They're different things right.
Science has always been a work in progress and it's very often been full of conformity and "me-tooism".

Another denier, OK. Any idea WHY you deny AGW Boges?

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 3:00pm:

Well I'm a skeptic, not a denier. They're different things right. Science has always been a work in progress and it's very often been full of conformity and "me-tooism".

Yes, they are different.

However, the resident cult member will call you a denier.

The “cult member” has science on his side, the deniers just have their denial.

I think Booby believing all that Dubyne crap is much more a cult member. People denying AGW and having no alternative theory that explains the heating during the half century of a quiescent sun are much more like cult members too.

See Bogie?  Told ya so.

The AGW cult rots the brain in a similar way that Islamophobia does.

It's good to see that not everyone has taken this pseudoscience called AGW, hook line and sinker.

Refreshing................. 8-)

What, exactly, is “pseudo” about it? Spectrometry records the absorption of IR photons by GHGs and the globe is warming even with a quiescent sun.

The abstract in full:

Quote:

The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

That seems pretty plain and not capable of confusion. It seems “sciency” and not at all “cult like.” What is cult like is the denial with no alternative explanation for the warming.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 3:37pm:

What, exactly, is “pseudo” about it? Spectrometry records the absorption of IR photons by GHGs and the globe is warming even with a quiescent sun. The abstract in full: Quote: The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate. That seems pretty plain and not capable of confusion. It seems “sciency” and not at all “cult like.” What is cult like is the denial with no alternative explanation for the warming.

JV as usual you're misinformed and talking malarkey.

http://i65.tinypic.com/2ylpj00.jpg

Read here,

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.3706v1.pdf

http://i67.tinypic.com/153limv.jpg

Hi Ajax,

Jovial doesn't know.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 3:57pm:

Hi Ajax, Jovial doesn't know.

It would seem so Bobby but its not for lack of material we shove under his nose on a daily basis, mostly he tends to ignore it, pushing his AGW agenda.....LOL

Ajax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 4:01pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 3:57pm: Hi Ajax, Jovial doesn't know. It would seem so Bobby but its not for lack of material we shove under his nose on a daily basis, mostly he tends to ignore it, pushing his AGW agenda.....LOL

Yes - AGW is just one theory supported by the media.

I LOVE it when Booby criticises me. It is always a clear case of projection.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 4:04pm:

I LOVE it when Bobby criticises me. It is always a clear case of projection.

Jovial.


AGW is a theory.

“AGW a theory promoted by the media” ahahahahahahaha

You really are a weird guy, Booby! You believe implicitly a lying charlatan talking complete bull poop!

—fox flash frozen
—lake turned pink

And think you can criticise me?  :D :D :D :D :D

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 4:07pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 4:04pm: I LOVE it when Bobby criticises me. It is always a clear case of projection. Jovial. AGW is a theory.

ALL science is a theory, Booby!

AGW has solid evidence to support it, however while the Dubyne crap is just that, crap!

There are theories propounded to explain something. There are scientific laws that just DESCRIBE but do not explain things: Boyle’s Law, Newton’s three Laws of Motion.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 4:03pm:

Ajax wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 4:01pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 3:57pm: Hi Ajax, Jovial doesn't know. It would seem so Bobby but its not for lack of material we shove under his nose on a daily basis, mostly he tends to ignore it, pushing his AGW agenda.....LOL Yes - AGW is just one theory supported by the media.

Yeah the media have made AGW a new religion amongst the uninformed.

What troubles me is university students have taken to the pseudoscience of AGW like a chocolate éclair, they just believe what they are being told without questioning it and if anyone dose dare to question it they might find themselves in deep water.

That's the worst part...............!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 4:07pm:

“AGW a theory promoted by the media” ahahahahahahaha You really are a weird guy, Bobby! You believe implicitly a lying charlatan talking complete bull poop! —fox flash frozen —lake turned pink And think you can criticise me?  :D :D :D :D :D

David DuByne is only a messenger -

he relies upon the global cooling theories of many scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ocCh5yDaqs

30 Top Scientists Predict Global Cooling 2015-2050

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 4:07pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 4:04pm: I LOVE it when Bobby criticises me. It is always a clear case of projection. Jovial. AGW is a theory.

Bobby can I just add at the end of your sentence

"AGW is a theory, that's been proven wrong."


Quote:

Warming by the end of this century IPCC computer models in 1990 projected a warming……… +2.78° C / Century Observations the last 25 years………………………….................+1.01° C / Century

http://i66.tinypic.com/hrwj9c.png



Quote:

The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds (Richard Feynman) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8habYTfHU

I have not quoted media, I have quoted scientific sources.

NOBODY has been able to refute a single letter I have quoted. I have noticed that.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 4:16pm:

I have not quoted media, I have quoted scientific sources. NOBODY has been able to refute a single letter I have quoted. I have noticed that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I

The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds (Richard Feynman)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8habYTfHU



Good video -
it's a pity that Jovial doesn't understand it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 4:16pm:

I have not quoted media, I have quoted scientific sources. NOBODY has been able to refute a single letter I have quoted. I have noticed that.

Many of David DuByne's videos have debunked fake NASA & NOAA data.

You admitted that you haven't watched the videos.

Booby, I read the descriptions and laugh.

Dubyne is an oilseed salesman, he can refute nothing. He lied about the fox, the pink lake and so much more which I have documented, Booby. He is not a credible source, he is spinning a line that he is probably being paid to spin. Total useless garbage.

How much time have you wasted watching all 400–odd videos and reading the fruitcake comments? You will never get that time back, Booby and they have filled your head with nonsense.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:

Booby, I read the descriptions and laugh. Dubyne is an oilseed salesman, he can refute nothing. He lied about the fox, the pink lake and so much more which I have documented, Booby. He is not a credible source, he is spinning a line that he is probably being paid to spin. Total useless garbage. How much time have you wasted watching all 400–odd videos and reading the fruitcake comments? You will never get that time back, Booby and they have filled your head with nonsense.

If the observations disagree with the theory then the theory is wrong.

Record cold temperatures all over the world - & getting colder -
means that AGW theory is wrong.

It's that simple.

Dubyne lies and exaggerates any cold.

You must have forgotten that “record cold and snow in Europe, all crops ruined” bulldust he came out with recently? It wasn’t true, was it Booby? Outlook for winter crops was excellent.

Dubyne lies, exaggerates and cherry picks. Oh yeah, remember “Europe wide record cold weather” turned out to be a bit of a cold spell in southern Sweden.

You cannot trust anything Dubyne says.

I will trust the BoM and CSIRO and NASA and UK Met Office before a bullshitter like Dubyne!

The globe is WARMING not cooling you sad sack! And it has been warming while the sun has been quiescent.

Even the comments to the stupid videos tell you that it was 70°C in Chicago and the midwest in February. 70°C in the middle of winter! Dubyne doesn’t mention that, does he? Or the warm Arctic and the disappearing melting sea ice?

Such powerful videos:



John Casey Predicts 2016 Mini Ice Age Begins & NASA Hides TSI Data | Mini Ice Age 2015-2035

Published on Apr 13, 2016

John Casey has just come out with his new commentary for rapid cooling to begin at the end of 2016, ushering in a cold period that will last 30+ years.

NASA has also been lying about Total Solar Irradiance measurements to hide global cooling. the 1979 baseline average was 1366, but now in 2016 the same 1979 baseline average has been lowered to 1361 to hide the drop in TSI.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9I6sqDnmS8

You just can’t refute a word I wrote, can you Booby? Yet you will keep wasting your time watching the collations of crap in the videos. Weird.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 4:52pm:

Such powerful videos: John Casey Predicts 2016 Mini Ice Age Begins & NASA Hides TSI Data | Mini Ice Age 2015-2035 Published on Apr 13, 2016 John Casey has just come out with his new commentary for rapid cooling to begin at the end of 2016, ushering in a cold period that will last 30+ years. NASA has also been lying about Total Solar Irradiance measurements to hide global cooling. the 1979 baseline average was 1366, but now in 2016 the same 1979 baseline average has been lowered to 1361 to hide the drop in TSI. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9I6sqDnmS8

More complete crap.

What if 2017 is hotter than 2016? Or will that be all the meteorological bodies lying?

How can NASA hide global cooling when it is warming?

There has certainly been no global cooling so far in 2017! Dubyne has tried hard to pretend there is but that is just bullcrap!

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 4:19pm:

The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds (Richard Feynman) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8habYTfHU Good video - it's a pity that Jovial doesn't understand it.

If you knew anything about science you wouldn’t put your faith in Dubyne and his nonsense.

About the drop in solar irradiance, I have mentioned that and pointed out that with the sun quiescent the globe has STILL warmed! The Arctic is STILL warmer than average and the ice extent is STILL decreasing more than average. The globe is still warming, Booby, warming!

Solar irradience and AGW, one study:

Quote:

Letters to Nature Nature 360, 330 - 333 (26 November 1992); doi:10.1038/360330a0 Implications for global warming of intercycle solar irradiance variations MICHAEL E. SCHLESINGER & NAVIN RAMANKUTTY Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 105 South Gregory Avenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA FOLLOWING earlier studies1–6, attention has recently been directed again to the possibility that long-term solar irradiance variations, rather than increased greenhouse gas concentrations, have been the dominant cause of the observed rise in global-mean surface temperature from the mid-nineteenth century to the present. Friis-Christensen and Lassen7 report a high correlation (0.95; ref. 8) between the variable period of the '11-year' sunspot cycle and the mean Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature from 1865 to 1985. The Marshall Institute report9 concludes that '…the sun has been the controlling influence on climate in the last 100 years, with the greenhouse effect playing a smaller role." Here we explore the implication that such putative solar irradiance variations would have for global warming. Our results provide strong circumstantial evidence that there have been intercycle variations in solar irradiance which have contributed to the observed temperature changes since 1856. However, we find that since the nineteenth century, greenhouse gases, not solar irradiance variations, have been the dominant contributor to the observed temperature changes.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6402/abs/360330a0.html

So much for THAT crap video you posted, Booby.

So much for HIDING TSI, Booby!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 3:08pm:

The “cult member” has science on his side, the deniers just have their denial.

So why don't you answer the scientific questions?

Here is another study on TSI:


Quote:

Abstract. A composite record of the Sun's total irradiance compiled from measurements made by five independent space-based radiometers since 1978 exhibits a prominent 11- year cycle with similar levels during 1986 and 1996, the two most recent minimum epochs of solar activity. This finding contradicts recent assertions of a 0.04% irradiance increase from the 1986 to 1996 solar minima and suggests that solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade. Nor does our 18-year composite irradiance record support a recent upward irradiance trend inferred from solar cycle length, a parameter used to imply a close linkage in the present century between solar variability and climate change.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Judith_Lean/publication/228356756_The_Sun's_total_irradiance_Cycles_trends_and_related_climate_change_uncertainties_since_1976/links/00463536a74b56bf5f000000.pdf

So much for hiding TSI.

If the observations disagree with the theory then

the theory is wrong.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 4:16pm:

I have not quoted media, I have quoted scientific sources.

Newsflash - JM has now accorded SKS  a scientific source. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 5:36pm:

If the observations disagree with the theory then the theory is wrong.

Then stop believing Dubyne! The Arctic is STILL unusually warm and more than the usual melt is taking place. So there is no global cooling, Booby.

So, if the observations disagree with the theory then discard the theory, the Dubyne nonsense! Most of his observations are lies anyway.

If the observations disagree with the theory then

the theory is wrong.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 4:56pm:

What if 2017 is hotter than 2016?

Will one year make it climate? Will it be hotter than 1997?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 5:40pm:

If the observations disagree with the theory then the theory is wrong.

Yes, Booby, so stop believing the Dubyne nonsense!

Jovial

so stop believing the AGW nonsense!

Why do you say it is nonsense?

Booby?

Booby?

I guess that despite the Feynman video Booby has no real idea of science and so cannot say why he thinks AGW is wrong. He has “faith” in Dubyne, you see. Faith is a dirty word to me!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

I guess that despite the Feynman video Booby has no real idea of science and so cannot say why he thinks AGW is wrong. He has “faith” in Dubyne, you see. Faith is a dirty word to me!

Don't make me laugh.

Your cult is based entirely on faith.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

I guess that despite the Feynman video Bobby has no real idea of science and so cannot say why he thinks AGW is wrong. He has “faith” in Dubyne, you see. Faith is a dirty word to me!

If the observations disagree with the theory then

the theory is wrong.

And Dubyne is wrong and lies all the time.

So we discard the LIA crap, right?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

https://i0.wp.com/principia-scientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NASA_FRAUD.jpg

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

The fox wasn’t flash frozen when it broke through the ice and fell into the water, was it?

it_is_the_light wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:16pm:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever https://i0.wp.com/principia-scientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NASA_FRAUD.jpg http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/ NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

As if you have a clue!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

and so cannot say why he thinks AGW is wrong.

But the onus of proof is with the proponents of AGW. So where is the peer-reviewed paper showing the warming cannot be natural variation?

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:23pm:

... where is the peer-reviewed paper showing the warming cannot be natural variation?

An excellent question.

I wonder how good the answer will be, though.

Does a lake turning pink REALLY prove we are entering a LIA? Of course not, the idiot Dubyne was just desperate for content with the NH winter over.

So Booby, ready to discard the Dubyne crap yet?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:

Does a lake turning pink REALLY prove we are entering a LIA? Of course not, the idiot Dubyne was just desperate for content with the NH winter over.

What was that about sticking to the point? ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:

lee wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 6:23pm: ... where is the peer-reviewed paper showing the warming cannot be natural variation? An excellent question. I wonder how good the answer will be, though.

He has been prompted many times. He ducks and weaves better than Danny Green. ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:

lee wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 6:23pm: ... where is the peer-reviewed paper showing the warming cannot be natural variation? An excellent question. I wonder how good the answer will be, though.

A 170 year periof of warming is natural variation, really? The CO2 content is higher than it has been for millions of years and the rate of warming is faster than it has been for eons. Natural variation  :D :D :D

it_is_the_light wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:16pm:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever https://i0.wp.com/principia-scientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NASA_FRAUD.jpg http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/ NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

Thanks sir master Light.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:28pm:

A 170 year periof of warming is natural variation, really? The CO2 content is higher than it has been for millions of years and the rate of warming is faster than it has been for eons. Natural variation  :D :D :D

You got that from a peer-reviewed paper? Link please ;)

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:30pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 6:28pm: A 170 year periof of warming is natural variation, really? The CO2 content is higher than it has been for millions of years and the rate of warming is faster than it has been for eons. Natural variation  :D :D :D You got that from a peer-reviewed paper? Link please ;)

I knew the cult member would have a crap answer.

Typical.

That is what the science says.

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:30pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 6:28pm: A 170 year periof of warming is natural variation, really? The CO2 content is higher than it has been for millions of years and the rate of warming is faster than it has been for eons. Natural variation  :D :D :D You got that from a peer-reviewed paper? Link please ;)

I'll bet you ten bucks you don't get the link.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:32pm:

That is what the science says.

So where does the science show the warming cannot be natural?

It is warming faster than it ever has before, doofus.

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:36pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 6:32pm: That is what the science says. So where does the science show the warming cannot be natural?

:-/

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

it_is_the_light wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 6:16pm: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever https://i0.wp.com/principia-scientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NASA_FRAUD.jpg http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/ NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud Thanks sir master Light.

Notice that Jovial ignored your evidence?

Light doesn’t give evidence but conspiracy theory nonsense. Light is a lot like Dubyne, actually, except Dubyne lies for money.

Maybe you lot would like to join these deniers:


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/climate-change-skeptic-group-seeks-to-influence-200000-teachers/

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 6:29pm: it_is_the_light wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 6:16pm: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever https://i0.wp.com/principia-scientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NASA_FRAUD.jpg http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/ NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud Thanks sir master Light. Notice that Jovial ignored your evidence?

Indeed.

As well as refusing to show us where science deems that the warming cannot be natural.

I ignore nonsense.

The CO2 is higher than it has been for a very long time.
The rate of warming is faster than it has ever been.

Ergo, not natural.

We see that IR is prevented from escaping to space by water vapor and the greenhouse gases. NASA has satellites monitoring that.

What more you want I don’t know.

Why not contact the Heartland Institute to get more info on AGW denial? You can also learn about denial of the theory of evolution. Or join Booby in his adoration of the nonsense spouted by Dubyne. You can learn all about foxes being flash frozen (it was cold, of course but not -80°C cold for goodness sake!) It is all nonsense!

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:36pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 6:32pm: That is what the science says. So where does the science show the warming cannot be natural?

                                         :-/

The CO2 content of the atmosphere is higher than it has been for a long time.
The globe is heating up a rate never seen before.

Ergo, not natural.

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:36pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 6:32pm: That is what the science says. So where does the science show the warming cannot be natural?

It looks like you're not going to get an answer.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:42pm:

It is warming faster than it ever has before, doofus.

1. Define "ever before"'
2. So you are saying correlation is causation? You know that is not scientific. ;)

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 7:13pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 6:42pm: It is warming faster than it ever has before, doofus. 1. Define "ever before"' 2. So you are saying correlation is causation? You know that is not scientific. ;)

The AGW cult has no interest in science.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 7:07pm:

The rate of warming is faster than it has ever been.

Similar to early 20th century warming. Which is before the AGW was considered measurable. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 7:12pm:

The globe is heating up a rate never seen before.

So was the hiatus at a rate never seen before? ;)

What proof are you using for your argument?

I suggest that you lot do some basic logic course.

The warming and CO2 are unprecedented. CO2 absorbs IR photons from exiting to space.

I really cannot make it any simpler.

I really would like to know WHY people deny AGW. Do you all drive huge SUVs? Dislike any change?

Dunno the world population is 7 billion and more and more people world wide are reaching middle class status and buying cars, more and more electricity is being generated and you think none of this makes any difference? Not likely.

Since mid 19th century we have been spewing more and more pollution of all kinds into the atmosphere (and streams etc etc) and building huge rubbish dumps which generate methane etc etc and you think none of this makes any difference? Not likely.

We know the mechanism of AGW. We know it has been happening despite the sun being in a quiescent state. Takes something special to believe rubbish like Dubyne spews or to deny AGW.

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 7:18pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 7:12pm: The globe is heating up a rate never seen before. So was the hiatus at a rate never seen before? ;) What proof are you using for your argument?

He seems reluctant to show us any proof.

I wonder why that is    :-/

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

We know the mechanism of AGW.

Nope. postulation.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

We know it has been happening despite the sun being in a quiescent state.

You like to ignore visible light don't you? You haven't explained the downwelling IR radiation as part of that visible light, and its effect on CO2.

Takes something special to use your personal beliefs ahead of published science. Where is that published science on the warming too fast to be natural variation? You must have something scientific; or not. ;)

You are talking nonsense again, Lees.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

The warming and CO2 are unprecedented.

Mere speculation.

What hiatus?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 7:36pm:

What hiatus?

New paper: The hiatus still exists
Apr 18th, 2017 at 12:33pm Quote
"The subtle origins of surface-warming hiatuses"



"Budgeting with existing observations cannot constrain the origin of the recent hiatus, because the uncertainty in observations dwarfs the small flux deviations that could cause a hiatus. The sensitivity of these flux deviations to the observational dataset and to energy budget choices helps explain why previous studies conflict, and suggests that the origin of the recent hiatus may never be identified."

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3274.html

To which you responded - "Interesting paper" ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 7:35pm:

You are talking nonsense again, Lees.

Which nonsense would that be? Please be specific. ;)

Tell me Lees, why do YOU deny climate change in general and AGW in particular. You make yourself look silly several times doing so. So. . .why deny?

http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/wheel-of-climate.jpg

Why do you deny, Gregg? Do you deny that the globe is warming?

LOL.......it's like throwing a ball against a brick wall.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 8:03pm:

Tell me Lees, why do YOU deny climate change in general

Really? Please quote where I have said the climate doesn't change. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 8:03pm:

and AGW in particular.

And this also. As I have said many times man has contributed through land use change.

So tell me ... why do you feel the need to continually lie?
Why do you feel the need to label people?
Why do you feel the need to make sch!tt up?

What hiatus, Lees?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 9:19pm:

What hiatus, Lees?

The one admitted to by the IPCC in AR5. Chapter 9 Box 9.2

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

The non–existent hiatus?

You can accept climate change

You can accept anthropogenic global warming

All of it is a valid hypothesis / theory


What no-one should accept is that Australia's approx 1% of carbon output is worth doing anything about. We could cut out output by 100% and not a single thing will change.

We are irrelevant, politically and pollutionally; no-one gives a sh1t about our opinions or actions on the matter.


If it in out best interest to make some changes fine, but don't scream the world in going to end unless "we" do something now. It may very well end, but not because did or did not do something.

Actually Australia is a net carbon sink. The Greenies and alarmists don't want that known.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 10:45pm:

You can accept climate change You can accept anthropogenic global warming All of it is a valid hypothesis / theory What no-one should accept is that Australia's approx 1% of carbon output is worth doing anything about. We could cut out output by 100% and not a single thing will change. We are irrelevant, politically and pollutionally; no-one gives a sh1t about our opinions or actions on the matter. If it in out best interest to make some changes fine, but don't scream the world in going to end unless "we" do something now. It may very well end, but not because did or did not do something.

I think we should do our bit, can’t expect other countries to make effort if we don’t. Also, there are a lot of small countries like Australia and if they all make a decent effort the collective effect will be worthwhile.

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 11:03pm:

Actually Australia is a net carbon sink. The Greenies and alarmists don't want that known.

That is true.


They need the hysteria and statements like we are the 'worst in the world carbon emitters per head of population' to justify what ever the fkk they are trying to justify.

But the problem is with that sort of hysterical behaviour they pretty much kill any credibility the argument for a low pollution society they may have had.

We all could pollute less, but be fkked if Im listening to those clowns.

No hysteria is needed.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 11:18pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 10:45pm: You can accept climate change You can accept anthropogenic global warming All of it is a valid hypothesis / theory What no-one should accept is that Australia's approx 1% of carbon output is worth doing anything about. We could cut out output by 100% and not a single thing will change. We are irrelevant, politically and pollutionally; no-one gives a sh1t about our opinions or actions on the matter. If it in out best interest to make some changes fine, but don't scream the world in going to end unless "we" do something now. It may very well end, but not because did or did not do something. I think we should do our bit, can’t expect other countries to make effort if we don’t. Also, there are a lot of small countries like Australia and if they all make a decent effort the collective effect will be worthwhile.

No doubt, but it isn't critical, the world ins't going to end because of what we do or don't do. Talk to me like Im an adult that knows the difference between a hysterical outburst and a reasoned argument.

This is one of the many, many reason people hate fkken greenies

Just doing a bit of house cleaning and found this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4vRBImEQ3Ihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPIyIMwfcwQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

Malcolm Roberts, really?  :D :D :D

Poll added. As you can see there are options only for deniers.

If you vote in the poll please post your reasons for so doing.

Man adds little to global warming............. :P

Ohh my reasons you know my reasons, AGW is the oligarchies snake oil to tax us all on the air we breathe.

The science doesn't hold up.

Then vote that way!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 10:54am:

Then vote that way!

I did............................... 8-)

Hey JV

Would you vote for a one world government.....???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRWL4WBq-Po

Ah OK, since I didn’t vote in the poll, knowing the science backs AGW, so can’t see the results until the poll ends in 10 days.

Hid the votes so people aren’t influenced by votes cast previously.

People have 90 minutes to change their votes. Guests can’t vote but I guess socks can  >:(

Ajax wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 10:58am:

Hey JV Would you vote for a one world government.....??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRWL4WBq-Po

A one world government is not likely inside of a thousand years. Silly question that has nothing to do with AGW.

I am not a Green and never have been. Whatever environmental credentials they had they have now lost, they are LINA, Left In Name Only. Neoconservatives like the Libs.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 30^th, 2017 at 11:27am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 30th, 2017 at 10:58am: Hey JV Would you vote for a one world government.....??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRWL4WBq-Po A one world government is not likely inside of a thousand years. Silly question that has nothing to do with AGW. I am not a Green and never have been. Whatever environmental credentials they had they have now lost, they are LINA, Left In Name Only. Neoconservatives like the Libs.

I'll take that as a "YES" but you wont be around to vote on it...... ;)

Take it however you like, you obviously go on feelings not data.

How AGW is affecting the Arctic, sea ice, ice sheets, precipitation etc.

http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/Snow-Water-Ice-and-Permafrost.-Summary-for-Policy-makers/1532

Ice free Arctic by late 2030 is possible.