Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Political Parties >> Liberal Party >> Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1305115643

Message started by freediver on May 11th, 2011 at 10:07pm

Title: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 11th, 2011 at 10:07pm
If the coalition keeps stumbling on such basic mathematical and logical concepts, how can they be expected to grasp the science and the economics of the issue?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#should-tony-abbott-apologise-to-tim-flannery

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 11th, 2011 at 10:25pm
Is this the same Tim Flannery that stated that due to global warming that we'd not have any rain again and that the dams would never get to be filled?


The same Tim Flannery that's been proved to be a scaremongerer, scam artist oh and one with a vested interest at the expense of the taxpayer.

"In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".

Check Sydney's dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start.

In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."

Check Adelaide's water storage levels today: 77 per cent.

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane's dam levels: 100 per cent full."


...

"In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster.

As he put it: "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming ...

"In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."

One premier, Queensland's Peter Beattie, took such predictions - made by other warming alarmists, too - so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers' money on a desalination plant, saying "it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate".

But check that desalination plant today: mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned."

...

"(Incidentally, notice how many of Flannery's big predictions date from 2007? That was the year warming alarmism reached its most hysterical pitch and Flannery was named Australian of the Year.)

Back to another tip Flannery gave in that year of warming terror. In 2007, he warned that "the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally" by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff.

We should switch to "green" power instead, said Flannery, who recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam.

"There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia's economy for the best part of a century," he said.

"The technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward."

Flannery repeatedly promoted this "straightforward" technology, and in 2009, the Rudd government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin, the very area Flannery recommended. Coincidentally, Flannery has for years been a Geodynamics shareholder, a vested interest he sometimes declares.

Time to check on how that business tip went. Answer: erk.

The technology Flannery said was "relatively straighforward" wasn't."

"One of Geodynamics' five wells at Innamincka collapsed in an explosion that damaged two others. All had to be plugged with cement.

The project has now been hit by the kind of floods Flannery didn't predict in a warming world, with Geodynamics announcing work had been further "delayed following extensive local rainfall in the Cooper Basin region"." The irony!!!

"The technological and financing difficulties mean there is no certainty now that a commercial-scale plant will ever get built, let alone prove viable, so it's no surprise the company's share price has almost halved in four months.

Never mind, here comes Flannery with his latest scares and you-beaut fix.

His job as Climate Commission chief, says Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, is to "provide an authoritative, independent source of information on climate change to the Australian community" and "build the consensus about reducing Australia's carbon pollution".

That, translated, means selling us whatever scheme the Government cooks up to tax carbon dioxide, doing to the economy what the floods have done to Flannery's hot-rocks investment.

See why I say Flannery is the right man for this job? Who better to teach us how little we really know about global warming and how much it may cost to panic? "

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predictions-about-climate-change-says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by mozzaok on May 11th, 2011 at 10:46pm
Abbott should first be asked to actually sit down and listen to someone other than a contrarian, denialist, spokesperson, to see if he is actually capable of understanding just how totally wrong his understanding of the issue is, and then he should either try to justify his misinterpretation of Flannery's statement, and if he cannot do that, then he should definitely apologise, publicly, and sincerely.
If he chooses not to do that then the accusations against him, as being a deliberate confusionalist, who is deliberately promoting false information, and outright lies, for political purposes, could rightly be declared as valid criticism.



Quote:
Is this the same Tim Flannery that stated that due to global warming that we'd not have any rain again and that the dams would never get to be filled?
Creep

Would you mind providing the evidence to support that claim Creep, or should we just take it as yet another piece of deceitful misinformation spread by denialists?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 11th, 2011 at 10:50pm

mozzaok wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:46pm:

Quote:
Is this the same Tim Flannery that stated that due to global warming that we'd not have any rain again and that the dams would never get to be filled?
Creep

Would you mind providing the evidence to support that claim Creep, or should we just take it as yet another piece of deceitful misinformation spread by denialists?




Shame you weren't able to refer to the source.

Much better to listen to the scaremongering from a shareholder who is getting the government to buy into his investments.
Wonder when Flannery will be retracking his outrageous comments now that he has been proved wrong as well as his claim of global warming.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by mozzaok on May 11th, 2011 at 10:54pm
Still waiting Creep.
I am not asking for Andrew Bolt's interpretations, where he tells you what "he thinks",Flannery has said, but actual links to Flannery making the claims that you have, seemingly falsely, attributed to him.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 11th, 2011 at 10:56pm

mozzaok wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:54pm:
Still waiting Creep.
I am not asking for Andrew Bolt's interpretations, where he tells you what "he thinks",Flannery has said, but actual links to Flannery making the claims that you have, seemingly falsely, attributed to him.




Once again it is a shame that you are unable to refer to the source that was quoted.
Shame that you have ignored Flannery's comments now that he has been proved wrong.
But you can keep your head in the sand, with the non-existant rains that we are having you won't have to worry about being drowned.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by mozzaok on May 11th, 2011 at 11:01pm
So that is a NO?
A common trait amongst denialists appears to be a total lack of integrity, in the way they choose to present information, where they make false statements, yet never feel the slightest compunction to verify their claims, and happily just go on repeating, false, discredited misinformation, because it suits their argument.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by progressiveslol on May 12th, 2011 at 12:25am

creep wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:56pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:54pm:
Still waiting Creep.
I am not asking for Andrew Bolt's interpretations, where he tells you what "he thinks",Flannery has said, but actual links to Flannery making the claims that you have, seemingly falsely, attributed to him.



Once again it is a shame that you are unable to refer to the source that was quoted.
Shame that you have ignored Flannery's comments now that he has been proved wrong.
But you can keep your head in the sand, with the non-existant rains that we are having you won't have to worry about being drowned.

Nice article creep. Looks like Flannery is the kook Abbott said he was. No appology. Maybe Flannery should appologise to the Australian people.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Tony Bradshaw on May 12th, 2011 at 1:44am

progressiveslol wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 12:25am:

creep wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:56pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:54pm:
Still waiting Creep.
I am not asking for Andrew Bolt's interpretations, where he tells you what "he thinks",Flannery has said, but actual links to Flannery making the claims that you have, seemingly falsely, attributed to him.


Once again it is a shame that you are unable to refer to the source that was quoted.
Shame that you have ignored Flannery's comments now that he has been proved wrong.
But you can keep your head in the sand, with the non-existant rains that we are having you won't have to worry about being drowned.

Nice article creep. Looks like Flannery is the kook Abbott said he was. No appology. Maybe Flannery should appologise to the Australian people.


Flannery mearly represents the research he undertakes. BTW is "cods" and "progressiveslol" the same person?????? My guess is Yes.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by progressiveslol on May 12th, 2011 at 2:05am

Tony Bradshaw wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 1:44am:
BTW is "cods" and "progressiveslol" the same person?????? My guess is Yes.

Paranoid much. You are so paranoid, you can't even guess straight.

I suggest you look closer but to tell you the truth, if I wanted to be someone else I could. I have a program I wrote myself that gives a persona. I paste text into it and it gives the text the persona of the sock. Changing spelling and some grammar querks. Many other options available to me as well, like multiple networks ect.

lol YOU paranoid now. Ide say give it up, your not good at it.

To the mods j/k

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 12th, 2011 at 5:37am
"In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water"


Flannery was proved wrong
Fact is; Sydney's dam levels today: 73 per cent.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 12th, 2011 at 5:38am
"In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."


Fact is; Adelaide's water storage levels today: 77 per cent.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 12th, 2011 at 5:39am
"In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".


Fact is; Brisbane's dam levels: 100 per cent full."


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 12th, 2011 at 5:43am
"In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster.

"Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming ...

"In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."

We should switch to "green" power instead, said Flannery, who recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam.
Flannery repeatedly promoted this "straightforward" technology, and in 2009, the Rudd government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics

And Fact flannery just happened to be a shareholder of Geodynamics

Conflict of interest much?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 12th, 2011 at 5:46am

progressiveslol wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 12:25am:

creep wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:56pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:54pm:
Still waiting Creep.
I am not asking for Andrew Bolt's interpretations, where he tells you what "he thinks",Flannery has said, but actual links to Flannery making the claims that you have, seemingly falsely, attributed to him.



Once again it is a shame that you are unable to refer to the source that was quoted.
Shame that you have ignored Flannery's comments now that he has been proved wrong.
But you can keep your head in the sand, with the non-existant rains that we are having you won't have to worry about being drowned.

Nice article creep. Looks like Flannery is the kook Abbott said he was. No appology. Maybe Flannery should appologise to the Australian people.




This is right.
Flannery should apologise to not only Abbott but to Australia for his outrageous claims and scaremongering.
But the denialists of the scam will continue, as has been shown by one denialist above. Which is why I've had to spoon feed him.

It must be a total let down to the denialists to the scam having had their major scaremongerer's claims proven to be wrong.
So now that the scam has been exposed maybe the scammers will try another series of emails to "adjust" the facts to suit their scam.

It will only fool those that will believe anything despite the truth, the real facts and logic.
Hope Flannery's next scaremongering campaign begins with "Once upon a time..." it would make it so much better for the children!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 12th, 2011 at 5:52am

Tony Bradshaw wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 1:44am:
Flannery mearly represents the research he undertakes.



Guess that explains why Flannery recommended Geodynamics to the ALP which Flannery just happened to be a shareholder in.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 12th, 2011 at 5:59am

Tony Bradshaw wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 1:44am:
Flannery mearly represents the research he undertakes.



Which the ALP then invested $90m based on Flannery's recommendation.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Greens_Win on May 12th, 2011 at 6:13am
Abbott should make a correction, yet he will not because it takes a big man to admit they are wrong, a bigger man to admit he is deceitful and tricky.

Abbott knows climate change will kill either his or Gillard's political career ... my money would be on his career dying if I was a betting person.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by BigOl64 on May 12th, 2011 at 6:24am

____ wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:13am:
Abbott should make a correction, yet he will not because it takes a big man to admit they are wrong, a bigger man to admit he is deceitful and tricky.



Just like when you admitted that you were wrong in your specious interpretation of the stupid greens policy on coal mining.

Yeh, that would be pretty impressive of him.


Hypocrite!


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by cods on May 12th, 2011 at 6:25am

Tony Bradshaw wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 1:44am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 12:25am:

creep wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:56pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:54pm:
Still waiting Creep.
I am not asking for Andrew Bolt's interpretations, where he tells you what "he thinks",Flannery has said, but actual links to Flannery making the claims that you have, seemingly falsely, attributed to him.


Once again it is a shame that you are unable to refer to the source that was quoted.
Shame that you have ignored Flannery's comments now that he has been proved wrong.
But you can keep your head in the sand, with the non-existant rains that we are having you won't have to worry about being drowned.

Nice article creep. Looks like Flannery is the kook Abbott said he was. No appology. Maybe Flannery should appologise to the Australian people.


Flannery mearly represents the research he undertakes. BTW is "cods" and "progressiveslol" the same person?????? My guess is Yes.






AND YOU WOULD GUESS WRONG....AND YOU GUYS THINK YOUR ARE 'NEVER' WRONG DONT YOU?


back to Tim..

Mr Combet has paid tribute to the work of Professor Flannery, who has left the council after being named the new chief commissioner of the independent Climate Commission




DONT'CHA LOVE THAT WORD....'INDEPENDENT'

it has taken on a whole new meaning.

and just what we need another cLIMATE COMMISSION TO GIVE AS MUCH CREDENCE TO THE CARBON TAX AS POSSIBLE..yaaaaaaaawn

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by cods on May 12th, 2011 at 6:35am

creep wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 5:59am:

Tony Bradshaw wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 1:44am:
Flannery mearly represents the research he undertakes.



Which the ALP then invested $90m based on Flannery's recommendation.




I have to admit to never hearing about Tim before this climate change    however he is suddenly in huge demand...wonder how much he is making out of the public purse..he must be laughing all the way to the bank...even though the planet is doomed....well it it isnt it??????.

I mean this govt aint in that much of a hurry to save it the time they are taking with their CARBON TAX policy....

remember[nothing else will save the planet only the ALPs CARBON TAX]


and at this rate  5.5  years gone by since 2007...Al Gore and  the greens said devastation by 2013..oh sugar..


this govt has not got one thing right so far....

and now we are supposed to trust them with saving the planet..

bit of a big ask, I dont think I have that much faith to be honest

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Greens_Win on May 12th, 2011 at 6:36am

BigOl64 wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:24am:

____ wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:13am:
Abbott should make a correction, yet he will not because it takes a big man to admit they are wrong, a bigger man to admit he is deceitful and tricky.



Just like when you admitted that you were wrong in your specious interpretation of the stupid greens policy on coal mining.

Yeh, that would be pretty impressive of him.


Hypocrite!



I wasn't wrong since you made the incorrect claim in that thread.


Notice how the lib sycophants defect and don't want to talk of Abbott's blatant lie.


Hang on, I better be more specific ... the lie posted in the opening post of this thread

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by BigOl64 on May 12th, 2011 at 6:46am

____ wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:36am:

BigOl64 wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:24am:

____ wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:13am:
Abbott should make a correction, yet he will not because it takes a big man to admit they are wrong, a bigger man to admit he is deceitful and tricky.



Just like when you admitted that you were wrong in your specious interpretation of the stupid greens policy on coal mining.

Yeh, that would be pretty impressive of him.


Hypocrite!



I wasn't wrong since you made the incorrect claim in that thread.


Notice how the lib sycophants defect and don't want to talk of Abbott's blatant lie.


Hang on, I better be more specific ... the lie posted in the opening post of this thread



The claim I made came straight from the greens policy web site, how can that be my lie?


BTW not a liberal, supporter, voter or other, but don't let the truth get in the way of your arguments.


You were caught out in an act of gross stupidity brought about by your over abundance of Dunning - Kruger.  ;D



Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 12th, 2011 at 6:48am
Apologise to Flannery?
The man has as much credibility as a Druid Soothsayer.
And they had a better prediction rate just by reading animals entrails.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Greens_Win on May 12th, 2011 at 6:50am

BigOl64 wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:46am:

____ wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:36am:

BigOl64 wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:24am:

____ wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:13am:
Abbott should make a correction, yet he will not because it takes a big man to admit they are wrong, a bigger man to admit he is deceitful and tricky.



Just like when you admitted that you were wrong in your specious interpretation of the stupid greens policy on coal mining.

Yeh, that would be pretty impressive of him.


Hypocrite!



I wasn't wrong since you made the incorrect claim in that thread.


Notice how the lib sycophants defect and don't want to talk of Abbott's blatant lie.


Hang on, I better be more specific ... the lie posted in the opening post of this thread



The claim I made came straight from the greens policy web site, how can that be my lie?


BTW not a liberal, supporter, voter or other, but don't let the truth get in the way of your arguments.


You were caught out in an act of gross stupidity brought about by your over abundance of Dunning - Kruger.  ;D



Take it to the other thread ... that's right you can't because you have already been proved wrong.

Meanwhile Back To Topic


Abbott told a blatant lie, and Lib sycophant posters deflect


Time for Abbott to stop lying and apologise.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Greens_Win on May 12th, 2011 at 6:51am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:48am:
Apologise to Flannery?
The man has as much credibility as a Druid Soothsayer.
And they had a better prediction rate just by reading animals entrails.




So you support Abbott telling blatant lies

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Greens_Win on May 12th, 2011 at 6:53am
So its the quality of the person Abbott lies about that is of importance ... not that abbott told yet another blatant lie to try and hide his inaction on climate change and Lib's weakest of them all climate policies?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by cods on May 12th, 2011 at 6:57am
does anyone else notice when our friends from the hardleft get backed into a corner they start calling the libs names.....they will be sending Xmas cards next they seem to know us all.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by BigOl64 on May 12th, 2011 at 7:05am

____ wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:50am:
Take it to the other thread ... that's right you can't because you have already been proved wrong.

Meanwhile Back To Topic


Abbott told a blatant lie, and Lib sycophant posters deflect


Time for Abbott to stop lying and apologise.



You actually proved nothing, you were caught in a lie of your own making and made a churlish attemtp to deflect.

This is relevant for 2 reasons:

1. You are a total hypocrite juct like your idol brown the clown demanding appologies from others when you refuse to do so yourself when wrong.

2. Your the most active sycophant on these boards, Im suprised you have the time to tyoe anything with your head so far up brown's clacker it would be impossible to see the keyboard.

Typical of greens hypocracy, just man up and admit you haven't a fuken clue about how greens policies work, probably due to your extemely poor education.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by cods on May 12th, 2011 at 7:09am

____ wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:51am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:48am:
Apologise to Flannery?
The man has as much credibility as a Druid Soothsayer.
And they had a better prediction rate just by reading animals entrails.




So you support Abbott telling blatant lies





WHO SUPPORTED GILLARD WITH HER BLATANT... 'NO CARBON TAX BY A GOVT I LEAD''


THE LIE OF THE CENTURY

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 12th, 2011 at 7:10am

____ wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:51am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:48am:
Apologise to Flannery?
The man has as much credibility as a Druid Soothsayer.
And they had a better prediction rate just by reading animals entrails.




So you support Abbott telling blatant lies


Far more than I could ever support Flannery's scaremongering and drivel.
The man's a scam artist.
The real question is will Flannery also buy a beachfront luxury $8.9 million villa in California.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 12th, 2011 at 7:21am

____ wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:53am:
So its the quality of the person Abbott lies about that is of importance ... not that abbott told yet another blatant lie to try and hide his inaction on climate change and Lib's weakest of them all climate policies?



And thank God for that.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by progressiveslol on May 12th, 2011 at 7:45am

cods wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:25am:

Tony Bradshaw wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 1:44am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 12:25am:

creep wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:56pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:54pm:
Still waiting Creep.
I am not asking for Andrew Bolt's interpretations, where he tells you what "he thinks",Flannery has said, but actual links to Flannery making the claims that you have, seemingly falsely, attributed to him.


Once again it is a shame that you are unable to refer to the source that was quoted.
Shame that you have ignored Flannery's comments now that he has been proved wrong.
But you can keep your head in the sand, with the non-existant rains that we are having you won't have to worry about being drowned.

Nice article creep. Looks like Flannery is the kook Abbott said he was. No appology. Maybe Flannery should appologise to the Australian people.


Flannery mearly represents the research he undertakes. BTW is "cods" and "progressiveslol" the same person?????? My guess is Yes.






AND YOU WOULD GUESS WRONG....AND YOU GUYS THINK YOUR ARE 'NEVER' WRONG DONT YOU?


back to Tim..

Mr Combet has paid tribute to the work of Professor Flannery, who has left the council after being named the new chief commissioner of the independent Climate Commission




DONT'CHA LOVE THAT WORD....'INDEPENDENT'

it has taken on a whole new meaning.

and just what we need another cLIMATE COMMISSION TO GIVE AS MUCH CREDENCE TO THE CARBON TAX AS POSSIBLE..yaaaaaaaawn

How the hell could this Flannery be promoted into such a position with such poor form historically, that creep has pointed out. My god, talk about nutters in labor.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by progressiveslol on May 12th, 2011 at 7:48am
I wouldnt be suprised if this Flannery idiot got the states all riled up to buy desalination plants from what this idiot said. Another reason for him to appologise to the Australian people for wasting yet more of our money.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 12th, 2011 at 9:07am
I love how all the "sceptics" are instantly dismissive of anything said by Flannery but will swallow any load of jizz that Andrew Bolt squirts in their mouths. The they revel in their anti science, anti intellectualism, like pigs wallowing in their own filth.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 12th, 2011 at 9:30am

astro_surf wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 9:07am:
I love how all the "sceptics" are instantly dismissive of anything said by Flannery but will swallow any load of jizz that Andrew Bolt squirts in their mouths. The they revel in their anti science, anti intellectualism, like pigs wallowing in their own filth.


I suspect Flannery might have more credibility if even just one of his predictions came true.
Perhaps then, media people like Andrew Bolt etc wouldn't hammer Flannery for his lack of credibility.
The problem Astro isn't the media's way of reporting, or whether one 'likes' or trusts Andrew Bolt, it's Flannery and his wild statements.
A Druid Soothsayer 2000 years ago has had more luck reading animal entrails, than Flannery's 'science' which is really just guesswork.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 12th, 2011 at 9:53am

astro_surf wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 9:07am:
I love how all the "sceptics" are instantly dismissive of anything said by Flannery but will swallow any load of jizz that Andrew Bolt squirts in their mouths. The they revel in their anti science, anti intellectualism, like pigs wallowing in their own filth.


And the other issue is how can one be a 'sceptic' when the subject of the scepticism is making wild predictions that have never happened.
If I told you Godzilla was going to romperstomp Tokyo next week, are you a 'sceptic' for thinking I'm a lefty nutter.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 12th, 2011 at 6:45pm
Creep, do you have anything to say about the actual topic of this thread? Do you think it is OK for Abbott to lie about Flannery because Flannery did not accurately predict when a drought would end?


Quote:
Is this the same Tim Flannery that stated that due to global warming that we'd not have any rain again and that the dams would never get to be filled?


You tell me creep. It sounds like the sort of thing Abbott would want his followers to repeat mindlessly. If you want to know the truth, you should always start with what he actually said.


creep wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:56pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:54pm:
Still waiting Creep.
I am not asking for Andrew Bolt's interpretations, where he tells you what "he thinks",Flannery has said, but actual links to Flannery making the claims that you have, seemingly falsely, attributed to him.




Once again it is a shame that you are unable to refer to the source that was quoted.
Shame that you have ignored Flannery's comments now that he has been proved wrong.
But you can keep your head in the sand, with the non-existant rains that we are having you won't have to worry about being drowned.


creep, you did not quote Flannery.


Quote:
and at this rate  5.5  years gone by since 2007...Al Gore and  the greens said devastation by 2013..oh sugar..


What about you cods - anything to say on the actual topic?


Quote:
Apologise to Flannery?
The man has as much credibility as a Druid Soothsayer.


So why was Abbott lying about what he said chicken?


Quote:
does anyone else notice when our friends from the hardleft get backed into a corner they start calling the libs names.....they will be sending Xmas cards next they seem to know us all.


Cods, accusing him of lying and asking for an apology is not the same as calling him names. It seems it is Abbott's supporters who feel backed into a corner, going by how desperate they are to change the topic and avoid quoting the man they are trying to bring down.


chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 7:10am:

____ wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:51am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:48am:
Apologise to Flannery?
The man has as much credibility as a Druid Soothsayer.
And they had a better prediction rate just by reading animals entrails.


So you support Abbott telling blatant lies


Far more than I could ever support Flannery's scaremongering and drivel.
The man's a scam artist.
The real question is will Flannery also buy a beachfront luxury $8.9 million villa in California.


Let me get this straight - you think it is OK for the opposition leader to lie to the public about what Flannery said because you think Flannery is a scaremonger?


Quote:
I suspect Flannery might have more credibility if even just one of his predictions came true.
Perhaps then, media people like Andrew Bolt etc wouldn't hammer Flannery for his lack of credibility.


If Flannery is such an easy target, why do Bolt and the leader of the coalition have to lie about what he said?


Quote:
The problem Astro isn't the media's way of reporting, or whether one 'likes' or trusts Andrew Bolt, it's Flannery and his wild statements.


Such as? So far none of Flannery's critics have actually quoted him.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 12th, 2011 at 9:12pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 9:30am:

astro_surf wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 9:07am:
I love how all the "sceptics" are instantly dismissive of anything said by Flannery but will swallow any load of jizz that Andrew Bolt squirts in their mouths. The they revel in their anti science, anti intellectualism, like pigs wallowing in their own filth.


I suspect Flannery might have more credibility if even just one of his predictions came true.
Perhaps then, media people like Andrew Bolt etc wouldn't hammer Flannery for his lack of credibility.
The problem Astro isn't the media's way of reporting, or whether one 'likes' or trusts Andrew Bolt, it's Flannery and his wild statements.
A Druid Soothsayer 2000 years ago has had more luck reading animal entrails, than Flannery's 'science' which is really just guesswork.



I don't believe for a second that Flannery said what he supposedly said in the way he supposedly said it, not on Bolt's word. Bolt is a serial liar who consistently misrepresents and takes out of context comments by people he sees as the enemy. And of all topics his lies about climate change are the most glearing and egregious.

If you want to find me the REAL quotes in their ACTUAL context, I'd be more than happy to discuss them. But assuming that Bolt is telling the truth without any question is the very epitome of blind faith.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 13th, 2011 at 7:32pm
Bolt is a fraud.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 13th, 2011 at 7:41pm

freediver wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 7:32pm:
Bolt is a fraud.

I'm led to believe he even admits to it!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by nairbe on May 13th, 2011 at 8:58pm

cods wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:57am:
does anyone else notice when our friends from the hardleft get backed into a corner they start calling the libs names.....they will be sending Xmas cards next they seem to know us all.


That's odd, the right get straight to the name calling right from the start. I suppose that means they are in a bad corner to start with.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 13th, 2011 at 9:07pm

nairbe wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 8:58pm:

cods wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 6:57am:
does anyone else notice when our friends from the hardleft get backed into a corner they start calling the libs names.....they will be sending Xmas cards next they seem to know us all.


That's odd, the right get straight to the name calling right from the start. I suppose that means they are in a bad corner to start with.

It means they all had nasty drug habits to begin with!!!   ;D ;D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 13th, 2011 at 9:52pm
When's Flannery going to resign from his position as climate commisioner (on around $180-s190k more wasted money), as afterall all his blatant scaremongering campaigns have been proved false.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 13th, 2011 at 9:55pm
I love how all the "gullible gerties" are instantly dismissive of anything said by Andrew Bolt but will swallow any load of "jizz" that the scam artist Tim Flannery squirts in their mouths. Then they revel in their anti science, anti intellectualism, like pigs wallowing in their own filth. I just bet that they are self stimulating whilst Flannery is unloading his "jizz".

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 13th, 2011 at 10:24pm

creep wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
When's Flannery going to resign from his position as climate commisioner (on around $180-s190k more wasted money), as afterall all his blatant scaremongering campaigns have been proved false.


If you think anything Bolt has written constitutes 'truth' then it just goes to show what deads**ts you deniers really are. Go and learn how to read a scientific paper then you might start to understand the meaning of 'proof'.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 13th, 2011 at 10:24pm

creep wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
When's Flannery going to resign from his position as climate commisioner (on around $180-s190k more wasted money), as afterall all his blatant scaremongering campaigns have been proved false.


If you think anything Bolt has written constitutes 'truth' then it just goes to show what deads**ts you deniers really are. Go and learn how to read a scientific paper then you might start to understand the meaning of 'proof'.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 13th, 2011 at 10:29pm
Rather than read the "scientific" papers lets read the "scientific" emails that were used to fool the gullible gerties.

Much more fun

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 13th, 2011 at 10:31pm
But what was even much more funnier was the gullible gerties STILL believed the false scientific reports even after they were declared false.

Just how guillible are these gerties!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 13th, 2011 at 10:34pm

astro_surf wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 10:24pm:

creep wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
When's Flannery going to resign from his position as climate commisioner (on around $180-s190k more wasted money), as afterall all his blatant scaremongering campaigns have been proved false.


the meaning of 'proof'.



Ohhhhh you mean the proof offered by Flannery that it would not rain again due to global warming.
Yes I agree Flannery's proof is ideal isn't.
I bet Flannery is now out sellingumbrellas due to the constant rains that the eastern states have been enduring.
So Flannery's "proof" really proves that global warming is a load of crap!


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 13th, 2011 at 10:51pm

creep wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 10:31pm:
But what was even much more funnier was the gullible gerties STILL believed the false scientific reports even after they were declared false.

Just how guillible are these gerties!


Evidence or STFU


creep wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 10:29pm:
Rather than read the "scientific" papers lets read the "scientific" emails that were used to fool the gullible gerties.

Much more fun


And just what exactly do you think those emails prove. Provide the examples and I'll happily explain exactly how you misconceptions are the result of a intentional misinformation campaign waged by the like of Andrew Bolt. Put up or shut up.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 13th, 2011 at 10:54pm

Quote:
I love how all the "gullible gerties" are instantly dismissive of anything said by Andrew Bolt


Not instantly. We read them first. Then we dismissed them. Most importantly, we dismissed what he said after reading what he actually said, not some idiot's 'interpretation' of it.

Creep, after all your blathering about what Flannery has said, do you have a single quote from him yet?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 13th, 2011 at 11:10pm

creep wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 9:55pm:
I love how all the "gullible gerties" are instantly dismissive of anything said by Andrew Bolt but will swallow any load of "jizz" that the scam artist Tim Flannery squirts in their mouths. Then they revel in their anti science, anti intellectualism, like pigs wallowing in their own filth. I just bet that they are self stimulating whilst Flannery is unloading his "jizz".

What self-respecting crack smoker uses phrases like "gullible gerties"???????????

Geez, your hardnosed 'successful' Dad must be very proud!!!  :D :D

Sure: sell drugs and pay off the spare rental but don't be a poof!  :o :o

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 14th, 2011 at 10:21am

astro_surf wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 10:24pm:

creep wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
When's Flannery going to resign from his position as climate commisioner (on around $180-s190k more wasted money), as afterall all his blatant scaremongering campaigns have been proved false.


If you think anything Bolt has written constitutes 'truth' then it just goes to show what deads**ts you deniers really are. Go and learn how to read a scientific paper then you might start to understand the meaning of 'proof'.



You mean one of those 'scientific' papers that's extrapolated the worlds average temperatures that was initially based on a guess.
Icypole anyone?
That 'scientific' paper is a best guess scenario rather than any proof.
They would be better served by printing that 'scientific' waffle on Sorbent 2 ply.
If Al Gore really believed all the dribble, do you really think he would have bought a luxury $8.9 million Villa on the beach in California.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 11:00am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 10:21am:

astro_surf wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 10:24pm:

creep wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
When's Flannery going to resign from his position as climate commisioner (on around $180-s190k more wasted money), as afterall all his blatant scaremongering campaigns have been proved false.


If you think anything Bolt has written constitutes 'truth' then it just goes to show what deads**ts you deniers really are. Go and learn how to read a scientific paper then you might start to understand the meaning of 'proof'.



You mean one of those 'scientific' papers that's extrapolated the worlds average temperatures that was initially based on a guess.
Icypole anyone?
That 'scientific' paper is a best guess scenario rather than any proof.
They would be better served by printing that 'scientific' waffle on Sorbent 2 ply.
If Al Gore really believed all the dribble, do you really think he would have bought a luxury $8.9 million Villa on the beach in California.




Youre not meant to remind the gullible gerties about how easily they got convinced.

Where's Tim Flannery nowadays? Under his bed hiding from all the rain that Flannery said wouldnever eventuate.

Let's reread the comments by Flannery, just to remind the gullible gerties how ridiculous Flannery's comments have been.

'In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".'

It rained so much that Sydney's dams are over 70% full.


'In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."

It rained so much that the dams are over 75% full.



In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

It rained so much that the dams are 100% full


So what's Tim doing now?
Probably out selling umbrellas!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predictions-about-climate-change-says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by mavisdavis on May 14th, 2011 at 1:46pm
Flannery is just another soppy under achiever, riding the gravy train on the wave of the mass hysteria of simple minded gulible sheeple.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by progressiveslol on May 14th, 2011 at 1:58pm

mavisdavis wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 1:46pm:
Flannery is just another soppy under achiever, riding the gravy train on the wave of the mass hysteria of simple minded gulible sheeple.

Have to agree. It is boiling down to a failed environmentalism, failed in their ultimate goals but successful in keeping business cleaner. But we know radicals, greens come to mind, that will stop at nothing to get their ultimate goals. There is even today, NASA using false data and many manipulated outcomes. It is becoming a joke.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by mavisdavis on May 14th, 2011 at 2:06pm

progressiveslol wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 1:58pm:

mavisdavis wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 1:46pm:
Flannery is just another soppy under achiever, riding the gravy train on the wave of the mass hysteria of simple minded gulible sheeple.

Have to agree. It is boiling down to a failed environmentalism, failed in their ultimate goals but successful in keeping business cleaner. But we know radicals, greens come to mind, that will stop at nothing to get their ultimate goals. There is even today, NASA using false data and many manipulated outcomes. It is becoming a joke.


The Greens live off the environment, not for it.  I believe that human development has reached a crucial stage, where it`s imperative that we take some serious steps in environmental conservation, and regeneration. The Greens are a lack lustre mob, cashing in on the circumstance of the moment.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 2:32pm

mavisdavis wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 1:46pm:
Flannery is just another soppy under achiever, riding the gravy train on the wave of the mass hysteria of simple minded gulible sheeple.




Bet all those gullible sheep(le) are named gertie

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 14th, 2011 at 2:36pm
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike
Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by adelcrow on May 14th, 2011 at 2:42pm
Why would Flannery even want an apology from a dummy spitting hate monger like Abbott?
An internationally respected man of high moral standing compared to a self serving dummy spitting career pollie..what a joke   ;D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 14th, 2011 at 3:52pm
Flannery is typical of the climate hysterics. makes a thousand predictions, none of which come to pass.

and yet people stil quote him?  Why?  because they NEED TO BELIEVE in disaster.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 14th, 2011 at 3:53pm

adelcrow wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 2:42pm:
Why would Flannery even want an apology from a dummy spitting hate monger like Abbott?
An internationally respected man of high moral standing compared to a self serving dummy spitting career pollie..what a joke   ;D


high standing??? he gets every prediction wrong! isnt that the definition of an international JOKE?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 14th, 2011 at 3:58pm
Flanery shoudl apolgise to US for his continued predictions which are 100% wrong

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 14th, 2011 at 4:01pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 3:53pm:

adelcrow wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 2:42pm:
Why would Flannery even want an apology from a dummy spitting hate monger like Abbott?
An internationally respected man of high moral standing compared to a self serving dummy spitting career pollie..what a joke   ;D


high standing??? he gets every prediction wrong! isnt that the definition of an international JOKE?


And by "every prediction" I assume you mean the selective, cherry picked examples provided by the serial distorter Andrew Bolt, right? Your's and Bolt's predilection for for drawing on only the very limited information that confirms your preconceived biases is the real JOKE here.

Still waiting for you to explain exactly WHY you believe that AGW is a lie and how CO2 could possibly be a function of warming and not a cause, you sad JOKE of man.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 14th, 2011 at 4:07pm

astro_surf wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 3:53pm:

adelcrow wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 2:42pm:
Why would Flannery even want an apology from a dummy spitting hate monger like Abbott?
An internationally respected man of high moral standing compared to a self serving dummy spitting career pollie..what a joke   ;D


high standing??? he gets every prediction wrong! isnt that the definition of an international JOKE?


And by "every prediction" I assume you mean the selective, cherry picked examples provided by the serial distorter Andrew Bolt, right? You's and Bolt's predilection for for drawing on only the very limited information  that confirms your preconceived biases is the real JOKE here.

Still waiting for you to explain exactly WHY you believe that AGW is a lie and how CO2 could possibly be a function of warming and not a cause, you sad JOKE of man.


his many and varied predictions have been already listed and they were all wrong. and then there is al gores predictions of 6m higher sea levels byhmmm lets remember.. yes by next year!!!

as for the CO2 question, ice cores have already shown in many cases that CO2 levels FOLLOWED warming - no preceded it. you are so unsicentific and biased you cannot even concieve of the notion of the 'science' being wrong. you dont understand it at all - you just quote it.  and what is the worlds biggest carbon sink?? OCEANS. and what happens to any body of water that gets warmer???  now remember you high school science. dissolved gases come out of solution. As temperatures get higher more Co2 is emitted from oceans and lakes.  Funnily enough that is exactly what I said.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 4:08pm

astro_surf wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:01pm:
Still waiting for you to explain exactly WHY you believe that AGW is a lie and how CO2 could possibly be a function of warming and not a cause, you sad JOKE of man.




Then as trees absorb CO2 then the greenies would be or should be all supporting for deforestation.

So. When will the greenies be supporting that?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 14th, 2011 at 4:10pm
and the carbon tax is not that at all. it is a CARBON DIOXIDE tax - the worlds most plentiful gas and its most useful since every plant on the planet needs it.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 4:13pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:10pm:
and the carbon tax is not that at all. it is a CARBON DIOXIDE tax - the worlds most plentiful gas and its most useful since every plant on the planet needs it.



This is true.
I look forward to seeing Bob Brown, Penny Wong, Peter Garret and Tim Flannery driving their bulldozers knocking down trees.

They would if they believed in a Co2 tax.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 14th, 2011 at 4:21pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:10pm:
and the carbon tax is not that at all. it is a CARBON DIOXIDE tax - the worlds most plentiful gas and its most useful since every plant on the planet needs it.


Another mindless denier talking point being regurgitated by the Useful Idiots that don't actually understand the processes they are talking about. Yes, CO2 is good for plants but a when it warms the planet it is very bad for humans AND many plant species that humans rely on to survive.


Quote:

CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate

Posted on 1 July 2010 by Mariana Ashley

Guest post by Mariana Ashley

CO2 feeds plants. And so, too, does ignorance and a little bit of politicking feed inane misconceptions. Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois made famous the CO2 as plant food argument during a U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing in 2009. The basic plant food argument is that since plants need CO2 to grow, more CO2 means, by proxy, more sustained and robust plant growth globally.

A quick look at the science behind this argument demonstrates its inherent weaknesses. In closed, controlled environments, like greenhouses and plant nurseries, an increase in CO2 does indeed spur plant growth. However, the globe is not a controlled environment, and it’s incredible sensitivity to a variety of factors is something that is often taken for granted when such narrow arguments are proffered. A rise in CO2 levels is not the only consequence of climate change, and it is these other effects that have had and will have more abiding adverse effects on plant growth around the world.

While CO2 is an important element that stimulates plant growth, the planet's flora requires a cocktail of elements to maintain its health. Arguably the most important of these elements is water. With the global increase in temperature caused by the various factors affecting our climate's balance, increased evaporation means decreased soil moisture. Another effect of global climate change is erratic precipitation patterns. This causes extreme weather in certain geographic locations only sporadically, with overall, balanced rainfall drastically reduced.

Suppose, however, that CO2 does prime plant growth in the world at large. To what extent will this happen? For one, the increased density of forest vegetation could increase the risk of wildfires, which have reared their ugly heads in California all too often in the past few years, wreaking devastating damage. Presumably the CO2 as plant food enthusiasts offer their argument in an effort to demonstrate the resulting agricultural advantages. But even if "CO2 fertilization" occurs, weeds proliferate in tandem with crops, which would only increase the global cost of agriculture.

We could discuss the scientific finer points of global climate change and the unlimited effects it could have on global plant growth all day. A Climate Denial Crock of the Week video does just that in debunking the CO2 plant food argument. However, at its most basic level, the CO2 plant food argument rests on a simple logical fallacy--the fallacy of exclusion, which focuses on one cause-and-effect (in this case, more CO2 means more plants) to the exclusion of all other cause-and-effect chains.

When CO2 is framed as an element good for plants in order to dismiss the other existing pieces of evidences that suggest the dangers of global climate change, we are left with an idea that only distracts us from the more pressing issues of our planet's increased loss of balance.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 14th, 2011 at 4:24pm

Quote:
Let's reread the comments by Flannery, just to remind the gullible gerties how ridiculous Flannery's comments have been.


Earth to creep: those are not Flannery's comments, they are someone else's interpretation of what Flannery said.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 4:31pm
Looks like the simpleton needs to be spoonfed.

OK

I'll make this very simple.

'The plants and trees around us help to balance the gases in our air by using up carbon dioxide and making oxygen'

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 4:32pm

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:24pm:

Quote:
Let's reread the comments by Flannery, just to remind the gullible gerties how ridiculous Flannery's comments have been.


Earth to creep: those are not Flannery's comments, they are someone else's interpretation of what Flannery said.




If you bothered to read the quote you would have seen that Bolt quoted Flannery.

Oh and by the way do you really think that Bolt would have misquoted Flannery.
If you do then you are really desperate to try and deny Flannery's scaremongering.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 14th, 2011 at 4:33pm
See how mundane it is when you quote what people actually said creep?

BTW, whose words are they?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by adelcrow on May 14th, 2011 at 4:34pm
I think the problem is the climate change deniers are basing their arguments on basic year 7 science.
They may just find the scientists and economists that are advising the worlds govts and industrial giants are a tad more advanced than that.
It is not surprising that people with limited knowledge on a problem are easily maniputed by an opposition party that knows how to use fear and ignorance to their political advantage.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 14th, 2011 at 4:35pm

Quote:
If you bothered to read the quote you would have seen that Bolt quoted Flannery.


Bolt quoted very short pieces of what Flannery said. Taken by themselves they are nothing but mundane facts. Bolt's interpretation of them is worthy of a six year old.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 4:35pm
Time to spoonfeed another gullible gertie

"In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."


There you go, thats what Flannery said.

Guess Adelaide dams haven't lived up to Flannery's scaremongering!!!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 14th, 2011 at 4:36pm

astro_surf wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:10pm:
and the carbon tax is not that at all. it is a CARBON DIOXIDE tax - the worlds most plentiful gas and its most useful since every plant on the planet needs it.


Another mindless denier talking point being regurgitated by the Useful Idiots that don't actually understand the processes they are talking about. Yes, CO2 is good for plants but a when it warms the planet it is very bad for humans AND many plant species that humans rely on to survive.


Quote:

CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate

Posted on 1 July 2010 by Mariana Ashley

Guest post by Mariana Ashley

CO2 feeds plants. And so, too, does ignorance and a little bit of politicking feed inane misconceptions. Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois made famous the CO2 as plant food argument during a U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing in 2009. The basic plant food argument is that since plants need CO2 to grow, more CO2 means, by proxy, more sustained and robust plant growth globally.

A quick look at the science behind this argument demonstrates its inherent weaknesses. In closed, controlled environments, like greenhouses and plant nurseries, an increase in CO2 does indeed spur plant growth. However, the globe is not a controlled environment, and it’s incredible sensitivity to a variety of factors is something that is often taken for granted when such narrow arguments are proffered. A rise in CO2 levels is not the only consequence of climate change, and it is these other effects that have had and will have more abiding adverse effects on plant growth around the world.

While CO2 is an important element that stimulates plant growth, the planet's flora requires a cocktail of elements to maintain its health. Arguably the most important of these elements is water. With the global increase in temperature caused by the various factors affecting our climate's balance, increased evaporation means decreased soil moisture. Another effect of global climate change is erratic precipitation patterns. This causes extreme weather in certain geographic locations only sporadically, with overall, balanced rainfall drastically reduced.

Suppose, however, that CO2 does prime plant growth in the world at large. To what extent will this happen? For one, the increased density of forest vegetation could increase the risk of wildfires, which have reared their ugly heads in California all too often in the past few years, wreaking devastating damage. Presumably the CO2 as plant food enthusiasts offer their argument in an effort to demonstrate the resulting agricultural advantages. But even if "CO2 fertilization" occurs, weeds proliferate in tandem with crops, which would only increase the global cost of agriculture.

We could discuss the scientific finer points of global climate change and the unlimited effects it could have on global plant growth all day. A Climate Denial Crock of the Week video does just that in debunking the CO2 plant food argument. However, at its most basic level, the CO2 plant food argument rests on a simple logical fallacy--the fallacy of exclusion, which focuses on one cause-and-effect (in this case, more CO2 means more plants) to the exclusion of all other cause-and-effect chains.

When CO2 is framed as an element good for plants in order to dismiss the other existing pieces of evidences that suggest the dangers of global climate change, we are left with an idea that only distracts us from the more pressing issues of our planet's increased loss of balance.


your quote confirms that CO2 is good for plants - not that it was ever actually the point. and you maintain the fiction that CO2 warms the planet rather than the reverse simply by restating it - nothing else.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 4:36pm
In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".


But the gullible gerties are in denial of what Flannery has said.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 14th, 2011 at 4:37pm

creep wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:35pm:
Time to spoonfeed another gullible gertie

"In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."


There you go, thats what Flannery said.

Guess Adelaide dams haven't lived up to Flannery's scaremongering!!!


And there is nothing wrong with that. In 2008 Adelaide was facing a severe water shortage.

Bolt is acting like Flannery was the only one not to predict when the drought finished.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 4:38pm
And more from the scaremongering Flannery

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".


Guess those darn dams just are doing what theyre supposed to be doing, as Bisbane's are 100% full!!!!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 14th, 2011 at 4:39pm

Quote:
In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains


Creep this is the bit that Flannery did not actually say. Are you able to tell the difference?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 4:39pm

creep wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:38pm:
And more from the scaremongering Flannery

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".


Guess those darn dams just are doing what theyre supposed to be doing, as Bisbane's are 100% full!!!!



Wonder where Flannery was this year. You can bet he wasn't holidaying in Queensland a sit got flooded.
But it wouldnt have been from rain, as Flannery predicted that Brisbane wouldnt have rains that would fill the dams!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 14th, 2011 at 4:39pm

adelcrow wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:34pm:
I think the problem is the climate change deniers are basing their arguments on basic year 7 science.
They may just find the scientists and economists that are advising the worlds govts and industrial giants are a tad more advanced than that.
It is not surprising that people with limited knowledge on a problem are easily maniputed by an opposition party that knows how to use fear and ignorance to their political advantage.


one of the scientists supporting the 'ether concept' in the 1940s was a Nobel Lauerate. He was also very, very wrong.

and your year 7 science also confirms that water releases dissolves gases as it warms. Or did you never learn that? and with the vast bulk of non-atmospheric CO2 being held in the oceans where is the surprise that with a small increase in average temperature that the oceans woudl release more CO2??? it is not just year 7 science it is a simple undeniable fact and no one disputes it. but we are asked to support the fact that CO2 causes the warming when in fact the warmin causes the CO2.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 14th, 2011 at 4:40pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:07pm:
his many and varied predictions have been already listed and they were all wrong. and then there is al gores predictions of 6m higher sea levels byhmmm lets remember.. yes by next year!!!


That's a lie. Al Gore never specified how long it would take for sea levels to rise to 6 metres, he merely pointed out that if the Greenland ice sheet was to melt entirely it would raise sea levels by 6 metres. which is a fact, although exceedingly unlikely for at least a few hundred years. The IPCC projections of up to 90cms by 2100 is worrying enough, especially seeing as the latest data from the Greenland ice floes, which were not available to the IPCC in 2005, shows that it is melting at a rate that will raise sea levels by 1.6 metres by 2100, and that truly IS alarming.


Quote:
as for the CO2 question, ice cores have already shown in many cases that CO2 levels FOLLOWED warming - no preceded it.


No YOU don't understand this denier talking point that you are repeating. In fact, I preempted this reply when you first made the claim a few weeks back, and provided you with ample reference that outlines exactly how you've been misled.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

When the planet moves from a glacial to an interglacial the change in solar radiation does indeed release vast amounts of CO2 from the oceans but it is this CO2 that AMPLIFIES the warming and allows the planet to warm to the degree it does in interglacials. It has been comprehensively proven that the changes in solar radiation alone couldn't possibly cause the planet to warm to the degree it does. The ONLY thing that can explain ti is the CO2.

This time though, rather than it being a slight change in solar irradiation causing the oceans to release CO2 into the atmosphere, it is us digging up vast stores of carbon buries safely under the ground, burning it and releasing it into the atmosphere. Unless of course you think that it is the temperature causing us to mine coal and burn it, because that would be the logical conclusion of your idiotic notion that just because changes in temperature cause CO2 to rise in the past means that is the ONLY thing that can cause CO2 to rise.


Quote:
you are so unsicentific and biased you cannot even concieve of the notion of the 'science' being wrong. you dont understand it at all - you just quote it.  


I understand it better than you, evidently.


Quote:
and what is the worlds biggest carbon sink?? OCEANS. and what happens to any body of water that gets warmer???  now remember you high school science. dissolved gases come out of solution. As temperatures get higher more Co2 is emitted from oceans and lakes.  Funnily enough that is exactly what I said.


Yes, and the fact that the oceans are acidifying and losing their capacity to absorb oceans is just one more piece of evidence that overwhelmingly supports AGW.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lsuatoni/why_scientists_agree_ocean_aci.html

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 14th, 2011 at 4:42pm

creep wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:35pm:
Time to spoonfeed another gullible gertie

"In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."


There you go, thats what Flannery said.

Guess Adelaide dams haven't lived up to Flannery's scaremongering!!!


our reservoirs actually hit 100% (except for one reservoir up north)

there is no way you can spin Flannery's prediction as anything other than totally undeniably wrong. Now, ive no problem with that. People make mistakes. What i DONT tolerate is people like som of thee posters who want to say it WASNT a mistake or it didnt happen or whatever mindless excuse comes up next.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 4:42pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:39pm:
we are asked to support the fact that CO2 causes the warming when in fact the warmin causes the CO2.




Better reduce population growth as it is humans breathing that are causing the build up of Co2

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 14th, 2011 at 4:43pm

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

creep wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:35pm:
Time to spoonfeed another gullible gertie

"In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."


There you go, thats what Flannery said.

Guess Adelaide dams haven't lived up to Flannery's scaremongering!!!


And there is nothing wrong with that. In 2008 Adelaide was facing a severe water shortage.

Bolt is acting like Flannery was the only one not to predict when the drought finished.


The difference was that Flannery was using Adelaide as an example of climate change. and in that he was undeniably wrong.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 4:44pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:42pm:

creep wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:35pm:
Time to spoonfeed another gullible gertie

"In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."


There you go, thats what Flannery said.

Guess Adelaide dams haven't lived up to Flannery's scaremongering!!!


our reservoirs actually hit 100% (except for one reservoir up north)

there is no way you can spin Flannery's prediction as anything other than totally undeniably wrong. Now, ive no problem with that. People make mistakes. What i DONT tolerate is people like som of thee posters who want to say it WASNT a mistake or it didnt happen or whatever mindless excuse comes up next.



SO true.
But there are the gullible gerties who are still in denial to Flannery being a scaremongerer.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 14th, 2011 at 4:45pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:39pm:

adelcrow wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:34pm:
I think the problem is the climate change deniers are basing their arguments on basic year 7 science.
They may just find the scientists and economists that are advising the worlds govts and industrial giants are a tad more advanced than that.
It is not surprising that people with limited knowledge on a problem are easily maniputed by an opposition party that knows how to use fear and ignorance to their political advantage.


one of the scientists supporting the 'ether concept' in the 1940s was a Nobel Lauerate. He was also very, very wrong.

and your year 7 science also confirms that water releases dissolves gases as it warms. Or did you never learn that? and with the vast bulk of non-atmospheric CO2 being held in the oceans where is the surprise that with a small increase in average temperature that the oceans woudl release more CO2??? it is not just year 7 science it is a simple undeniable fact and no one disputes it. but we are asked to support the fact that CO2 causes the warming when in fact the warmin causes the CO2.


Why do you think repeating actually means something? Do you think that geoscientists don't understand that concept? The logical conclusion of your idiocy is that it is temperature causing us to mine coal and burn it. But that is retarded.

Temperature CAN release CO2, but it will amplify that warming, which is what happens between ice ages. This time around WE have released the CO2, not a temperature change, and that IS causing an unprecedented warming. The evidence is undeniable, no matter how much you try.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 4:45pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:43pm:

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

creep wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:35pm:
Time to spoonfeed another gullible gertie

"In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."


There you go, thats what Flannery said.

Guess Adelaide dams haven't lived up to Flannery's scaremongering!!!


And there is nothing wrong with that. In 2008 Adelaide was facing a severe water shortage.

Bolt is acting like Flannery was the only one not to predict when the drought finished.


The difference was that Flannery was using Adelaide as an example of climate change. and in that he was undeniably wrong.



Flannery was PROVED wrong.
Flannery should do the honorable thing, renounce his scaremongering absurd comments and then resign.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 14th, 2011 at 4:48pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:43pm:

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

creep wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:35pm:
Time to spoonfeed another gullible gertie

"In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."


There you go, thats what Flannery said.

Guess Adelaide dams haven't lived up to Flannery's scaremongering!!!


And there is nothing wrong with that. In 2008 Adelaide was facing a severe water shortage.

Bolt is acting like Flannery was the only one not to predict when the drought finished.


The difference was that Flannery was using Adelaide as an example of climate change. and in that he was undeniably wrong.


Here's an Adelaide example that is inexplicable if the planet ISN'T warming:


Quote:
In my home city of Adelaide, we’re still experiencing the first official November heat wave since records began (a ‘heat wave’ being defined here as five or more consecutive days above 35°C). Last Saturday 7th Nov, the mercury climbed to 34.4°C, and on Sunday the heat wave officially commenced. From Sun 8/11 to Sat 14/11, the maximum temperatures have been 36.7°C, 37.0°C, 38.6°C, 39.2°C, 39.0°C, 38.7°C  and 39.5°C. The forecast for Sun 15/11 is 40 °C, after which the temperatures will drop back to the high 20s for a few days, and then another burst of days in the low-40s. If Sunday’s scorcher is realised (confirmed: 39.4°C), the heat wave will have lasted for 8 days [confirmed] (almost 9, with Sat 7/11 also almost reaching the threshold 35°C). Not a great time to hold a Christmas pageant — poor Santa!

Time for some context. The closest Adelaide has ever come to a spring heat wave was 4 days in a row 1894. This month’s event will double that — a doubling like this is not twice as unlikely, it’s orders of magnitude more unlikely. Consider that in prior to 2008, the record length for an Adelaide heat wave in any month was 8 days (all occurring in summer). Now, in the space of less than 2 years, we’ve had a 15 day event in Mar 2008 (a 1 in 3000 year event), a 9 day sequence in Jan/Feb 2009 (which included 8 days above 40°C and 13 consecutive days above 33°C), and now, another 8 day event in Nov 2009. How unusual is this? There have been 6 previous heat waves that lasted 8 days, many more of 7 days, more still of 6, and so on — the return time is logarithmically related to it’s length. Given these data, and the fact that the latest spring event has equaled previous all-time summer records (!), and the alarm bells should rightly be ringing. Statistically speaking, it’s astronomically unlikely that such a sequence of rare heat waves would occur by chance, if the climate wasn’t warming. But of course, it is.


Enjoy those heatwaves!  :D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 14th, 2011 at 4:49pm

Quote:
When the planet moves from a glacial to an interglacial the change in solar radiation does indeed release vast amounts of CO2 from the oceans but it is this CO2 that AMPLIFIES the warming and allows the planet to warm to the degree it does in interglacials. It has been comprehensively proven that the changes in solar radiation alone couldn't possibly cause the planet to warm to the degree it does. The ONLY thing that can explain ti is the CO2.

This time though, rather than it being a slight change in solar irradiation causing the oceans to release CO2 into the atmosphere, it is us digging up vast stores of carbon buries safely under the ground, burning it and releasing it into the atmosphere. Unless of course you think that it is the temperature causing us to mine coal and burn it, because that would be the logical conclusion of your idiotic notion that just because changes in temperature cause CO2 to rise in the past means that is the ONLY thing that can cause CO2 to rise.


Ive highlighted the error for you. this is an ASSUMPTION only without proof. As you correctly stated CO2 levels have risen and fallen over time affected in part by solar radiation levels. but the error and the arrogant assumption comes when you say that THIS TIME it is different. why? because you want to think it is? when the levels of CO2 that human emit are VASTLY less than than emitted from oceans and lakes and other natural reasons, that conclusion is highly unlikely.

'sceptical science' coudl do with a primer on logical thought and analysis.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 14th, 2011 at 4:57pm

astro_surf wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:39pm:

adelcrow wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:34pm:
I think the problem is the climate change deniers are basing their arguments on basic year 7 science.
They may just find the scientists and economists that are advising the worlds govts and industrial giants are a tad more advanced than that.
It is not surprising that people with limited knowledge on a problem are easily maniputed by an opposition party that knows how to use fear and ignorance to their political advantage.


one of the scientists supporting the 'ether concept' in the 1940s was a Nobel Lauerate. He was also very, very wrong.

and your year 7 science also confirms that water releases dissolves gases as it warms. Or did you never learn that? and with the vast bulk of non-atmospheric CO2 being held in the oceans where is the surprise that with a small increase in average temperature that the oceans woudl release more CO2??? it is not just year 7 science it is a simple undeniable fact and no one disputes it. but we are asked to support the fact that CO2 causes the warming when in fact the warmin causes the CO2.


Why do you think repeating actually means something? Do you think that geoscientists don't understand that concept? The logical conclusion of your idiocy is that it is temperature causing us to mine coal and burn it. But that is retarded.

Temperature CAN release CO2, but it will amplify that warming, which is what happens between ice ages. This time around WE have released the CO2, not a temperature change, and that IS causing an unprecedented warming. The evidence is undeniable, no matter how much you try.


I repeat it to try and get thru your thick head that scientests also have thick heads. the argument against the 'ether concept' is trivial - something a high school student could do without help - but top scientists still supported it. The notion that todays scientists cant be just as wrong about this is also brave and somewhat silly.

and again you have only re-asserted your (highlighted) opinion rather than support it. when oceans release 100 times as much CO2 as humans so and a bushfire can release a years worth of australias emissions I find it stunning that you can so easily swallow the lie that we are totally responsible for CO2 levels.

and to repeat yet again... this has all happene multiple times in the pre-industrial past. why should now suddenly be the stellar exception?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 14th, 2011 at 4:59pm

astro_surf wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:43pm:

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

creep wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:35pm:
Time to spoonfeed another gullible gertie

"In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."


There you go, thats what Flannery said.

Guess Adelaide dams haven't lived up to Flannery's scaremongering!!!


And there is nothing wrong with that. In 2008 Adelaide was facing a severe water shortage.

Bolt is acting like Flannery was the only one not to predict when the drought finished.


The difference was that Flannery was using Adelaide as an example of climate change. and in that he was undeniably wrong.


Here's an Adelaide example that is inexplicable if the planet ISN'T warming:


Quote:
In my home city of Adelaide, we’re still experiencing the first official November heat wave since records began (a ‘heat wave’ being defined here as five or more consecutive days above 35°C). Last Saturday 7th Nov, the mercury climbed to 34.4°C, and on Sunday the heat wave officially commenced. From Sun 8/11 to Sat 14/11, the maximum temperatures have been 36.7°C, 37.0°C, 38.6°C, 39.2°C, 39.0°C, 38.7°C  and 39.5°C. The forecast for Sun 15/11 is 40 °C, after which the temperatures will drop back to the high 20s for a few days, and then another burst of days in the low-40s. If Sunday’s scorcher is realised (confirmed: 39.4°C), the heat wave will have lasted for 8 days [confirmed] (almost 9, with Sat 7/11 also almost reaching the threshold 35°C). Not a great time to hold a Christmas pageant — poor Santa!

Time for some context. The closest Adelaide has ever come to a spring heat wave was 4 days in a row 1894. This month’s event will double that — a doubling like this is not twice as unlikely, it’s orders of magnitude more unlikely. Consider that in prior to 2008, the record length for an Adelaide heat wave in any month was 8 days (all occurring in summer). Now, in the space of less than 2 years, we’ve had a 15 day event in Mar 2008 (a 1 in 3000 year event), a 9 day sequence in Jan/Feb 2009 (which included 8 days above 40°C and 13 consecutive days above 33°C), and now, another 8 day event in Nov 2009. How unusual is this? There have been 6 previous heat waves that lasted 8 days, many more of 7 days, more still of 6, and so on — the return time is logarithmically related to it’s length. Given these data, and the fact that the latest spring event has equaled previous all-time summer records (!), and the alarm bells should rightly be ringing. Statistically speaking, it’s astronomically unlikely that such a sequence of rare heat waves would occur by chance, if the climate wasn’t warming. But of course, it is.


Enjoy those heatwaves!  :D


you are the first to say that weather isnt climate so have it back then! but also everybody accepts that climate changes - just not they hysterical humans-only-cause-climate-change nonsense. it is clearly obvious that most of australias climate is reverting back to its pre 1900 levels after getting cooler and wetter until mid 1970s. Climate is typically cyclical and yet you seem to struggle with this concept.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 14th, 2011 at 5:03pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:49pm:

Quote:
When the planet moves from a glacial to an interglacial the change in solar radiation does indeed release vast amounts of CO2 from the oceans but it is this CO2 that AMPLIFIES the warming and allows the planet to warm to the degree it does in interglacials. It has been comprehensively proven that the changes in solar radiation alone couldn't possibly cause the planet to warm to the degree it does. The ONLY thing that can explain ti is the CO2.

This time though, rather than it being a slight change in solar irradiation causing the oceans to release CO2 into the atmosphere, it is us digging up vast stores of carbon buries safely under the ground, burning it and releasing it into the atmosphere. Unless of course you think that it is the temperature causing us to mine coal and burn it, because that would be the logical conclusion of your idiotic notion that just because changes in temperature cause CO2 to rise in the past means that is the ONLY thing that can cause CO2 to rise.


Ive highlighted the error for you. this is an ASSUMPTION only without proof. As you correctly stated CO2 levels have risen and fallen over time affected in part by solar radiation levels. but the error and the arrogant assumption comes when you say that THIS TIME it is different. why? because you want to think it is? when the levels of CO2 that human emit are VASTLY less than than emitted from oceans and lakes and other natural reasons, that conclusion is highly unlikely.

'sceptical science' coudl do with a primer on logical thought and analysis.


It's not an assumption at all. You simply cannot explain the rate of warming in between ice ages unless the CO2 released by the change in solar energy amplifies that warming.

And how is it 'arrogant' to say that it is different this time? Are you suggesting that temperature change has caused atmospheric  CO2 to increase by 40% and NOT the burning of billions of tonnes of coal? Citations, please! ;D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 5:08pm
And for the gullies out there
On 11 Jun 05
Flannery's absurd scaremongering that some gullies believed in.
'Predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney's dams dry in just two years.'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1389858.htm


Then on 11 Feb 07
"So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, "

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm


And the ABC is Flannery friendly. Surprised that even the ABC have shot Flannery's absurd preditions.


It's ok Tim, just blame your absurdity onto the weather gods!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 14th, 2011 at 5:12pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:57pm:
I repeat it to try and get thru your thick head that scientests also have thick heads. the argument against the 'ether concept' is trivial - something a high school student could do without help - but top scientists still supported it. The notion that todays scientists cant be just as wrong about this is also brave and somewhat silly.

and again you have only re-asserted your (highlighted) opinion rather than support it. when oceans release 100 times as much CO2 as humans so and a bushfire can release a years worth of australias emissions I find it stunning that you can so easily swallow the lie that we are totally responsible for CO2 levels.

and to repeat yet again... this has all happene multiple times in the pre-industrial past. why should now suddenly be the stellar exception?


We've been through this before.



About 40% of human emissions are also absorbed by the natural carbon cycle, but it is the other 60% of those 29 gigatonnes that are NOT being absorbed and are accumulating in the atmosphere.

And the fact that the ocean's capacity to absorb excess CO2 and are acidifying from the excess CO2 is proof positive that the carbon cycle has been thrown out of balance by human activity.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 14th, 2011 at 5:16pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:59pm:
you are the first to say that weather isnt climate so have it back then! but also everybody accepts that climate changes - just not they hysterical humans-only-cause-climate-change nonsense. it is clearly obvious that most of australias climate is reverting back to its pre 1900 levels after getting cooler and wetter until mid 1970s. Climate is typically cyclical and yet you seem to struggle with this concept.


Weather iSN'T climate, climate is the trend in weather events and a trend is exactly what Professor Brooks was identifying in that post.

And, no, Australia's climate isn't 'reverting' back to anything. The current wet spell is a product of a warming planet as it is the record ocean temps in the Pacific that has caused the deepest La Nina ever recorded. And, just as climate scientists have been telling us for thirty-odd years that itr would, climate change is causing more and more extreme weather events. Whether it be record heatwaves due to unprecedented El Nino conditions or extreme floods from unprecedented La Nina events, those events are becoming more extreme EXACTLY as predicted.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 14th, 2011 at 5:20pm

astro_surf wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 5:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 4:49pm:

Quote:
When the planet moves from a glacial to an interglacial the change in solar radiation does indeed release vast amounts of CO2 from the oceans but it is this CO2 that AMPLIFIES the warming and allows the planet to warm to the degree it does in interglacials. It has been comprehensively proven that the changes in solar radiation alone couldn't possibly cause the planet to warm to the degree it does. The ONLY thing that can explain ti is the CO2.

This time though, rather than it being a slight change in solar irradiation causing the oceans to release CO2 into the atmosphere, it is us digging up vast stores of carbon buries safely under the ground, burning it and releasing it into the atmosphere. Unless of course you think that it is the temperature causing us to mine coal and burn it, because that would be the logical conclusion of your idiotic notion that just because changes in temperature cause CO2 to rise in the past means that is the ONLY thing that can cause CO2 to rise.


Ive highlighted the error for you. this is an ASSUMPTION only without proof. As you correctly stated CO2 levels have risen and fallen over time affected in part by solar radiation levels. but the error and the arrogant assumption comes when you say that THIS TIME it is different. why? because you want to think it is? when the levels of CO2 that human emit are VASTLY less than than emitted from oceans and lakes and other natural reasons, that conclusion is highly unlikely.

'sceptical science' coudl do with a primer on logical thought and analysis.


It's not an assumption at all. You simply cannot explain the rate of warming in between ice ages unless the CO2 released by the change in solar energy amplifies that warming.

And how is it 'arrogant' to say that it is different this time? Are you suggesting that temperature change has caused atmospheric  CO2 to increase by 40% and NOT the burning of billions of tonnes of coal? Citations, please! ;D


The 'ether concept' can be easily dismissed by the simple fact that this theory demanded the speed of light to vary in different directions despite knowing that it is a constant (in a vaccum). Yet prominent scientists supported it.

You are agian supporting a theory that has multiple hoiles in it without even acknowleding their existence. I repeat: OCEANS emit 100 times as much Co2 as humans and yet you have to repeat the line that we are to blame.

and despite the claim that solar radiation is not the cause, there are temperture rises on other planets in line with our own. That should at least give you pause to wonder why when the ONLY common attribute is solar radiation.

To stand a bit back from this debate Id say it is arrogant to assume man is the only cause of rising temperature or CO2 when there are simply so many variables in play. to assume that it is different this time and that todays warming is  different to the thousand times it has happened in the past is arrogant and in itself unscientific.

You are in the thrall of science - which is fine. I love it too. The difference is that you treat scientific pronouncements like holy writ. I dont. Ive seen too many theories come and go to believe everything that is said. Ive seen too many predictions fail miserably to trust everything.

and you do. You need to emply a little more critical thinking seasoned witha  bit more cynicism. The ether concept came about simply because scientists couldnt understand how light could travel in a vaccuum so they invented a theory to fit their own inadequate understanding. The same is happening here with climate science - stil in its infancy - coming up with theories to primarily explain their own inadeqacy. And frankly, that is ok. SCience builds on mistakes more than successes since we have far more than the former. but while you are totall in the hold of science's infallibility you will do nothing more than set yourself up for the mother of disappointment because science is wrong more often than right.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 5:21pm
And for the gullies out there, who still maintain belief in Tim Flannery despite Andrew Bolt proving him as a scaremongerer, wouldn't it be just nice for Tim Flannery and Andrew Bolt to "discuss' the absurd predictions he made.

Well here's your chance. As the two meet in 9th Jun10 on MTR
"Here’s the transcript from my confrontation yesterday with alarmist Tim Flannery on MTR 1377. (Listen here.)
It was extraordinary to have Flannery deny what I had before me in black and white - his wilder predictions, his previous support for nuclear power - and even stranger to have him claim that non-existent desalination plants save cities such as Brisbane from avoiding the warming-caused dry he predicted.

I’m sorry I ran out of time to ask him about the $90 million his geothermal investment received from the Rudd Government last year, his conflicts of interest, his concession that there had been an inexplicable pause in global warming, his frequent-flying hypocrisy, his baseless scare about Antarctic melting, his involvement in Sir Richard Brazen’s joy-flights in space and more. But enjoy:

   Flannery: I’m unlikely to vote for him because my trust has been eroded away… He promised to deliver an emissions trading scheme and he’s then withdrawn that with very little justification…

   Bolt: He said he wouldn’t move now until the rest of the world did something which is a direct repudiation of what he said before.  But, Tim, part of the reason, of course, that he’s backed down is that there’s been a great swing in sentiment against this kind of thing, there’s a rising tide of scepticism. How much are you to blame for some of that?

   Flannery : There is some swing in sentiment. And I think it’s very hard to maintain any issue with that sort of very high level of support for a long time. So there’s some, but what is happening around the world should give us all heart. We’ve seen China now pledged to reduce is emissions intensity by over 40 per cent.

   Bolt: It’s still going to build a coal-fired power station every week or so.

   Flannery: And what that is going to do if that’s achieved by 2020 is put us on track to avoid dangerous climate change. But for us to do that, places like Australia and the US, the wooden spooners in this debate, actually have to do their part.


   Bolt: But, Tim, I’m just wondering, there has been a rise in scepticism. That’s precisely why the Liberals, for example, have switched from supporting an ETS to opposing it ... and they dumped their leader over it. Now I’m wondering to what extent are you to blame for rising scepticism about some of the more alarming claims about global warming.

   Flannery : Well, many of the things that scientists highlight may happen are very alarming. They’re not alarmist but they are worrisome. Rises in sea-level for instance are a significant issue.

   Bolt: Well, let’s go through some of your own claims. You said , for example, that Adelaide may run out of water by early 2009.  Their reservoirs are half full now. You said Brisbane would probably run out of water by 2009. They are now 97 per cent full.  And Sydney could be dry as early as 2007.  Their reservoirs are also more than half full. How can you get away with all these claims?

   Flannery: What I have said is that there is a water problem. They may run out of water. And ..

   Bolt: 100 per cent full, nearly!

   Flannery:  And thankfully, Andrew, governments have taken that to heart and been building some desalination capacity such as in Perth.

   Bolt: Only in Perth.

   Flannery: No, there’s plans in every capital city..

   Bolt: No, no, no, you said Brisbane would run out of water possibly by as early as 2009. There’s no desalination plant, there’s no dam. It’s now 100 per full.

   Flannery: That’s a lie, Andrew. I didn’t say it would run out of water. I don’t have a crystal ball in front of me. I said Brisbane has a water problem.

   Bolt: I’ll quote your own words:  ”Water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.” That was, on the timeline you gave, by the beginning of 2009. Their reservoirs are now 97 per cent full.

   Flannery: Yeah, sure. There’s variability in rainfall. They still need a desal plant.

   Bolt: You also warned that Perth would be the 21 century’s first ghost metropolis.

   Flannery: I said it was… may.

   Bolt: It’s all “may”.

   Right? Because at that stage there had been no flows into that water catchment for a year and the water engineers were terrified.

   Bolt: Have you seen the water catchment levels here, see, they’re tracking above the five year level.  I’m showing you now.

   Flannery: You know what I came in here to talk about, Andrew, here? it’s our farm day we’re doing with our Deakin lecture series in Bendigo, at the Bendigo town hall today. And it’s a really exciting event…

   Andrew: All that’s lovely, Tim. But I think you need to be held to account for the alarmism that is in part your stock in trade, your schtick,, and is responsible for what you now see – the retreat from global warming policies.

   Flannery: You want to paint me as an alarmist.

   Bolt: You are an alarmist.

   Flannery: I’m a very practical person.

   Bolt: I ‘m asking you to defend these quotes.

   Flannery: Well, I’ve done that already

   Bolt: You said the Arctic could be ice free two years ago.

   Flannery: No I didn’t…

   [Price interrupts, and we argue over the questioning.]

   Bolt: I’m asking Tim whether he repents from all these allegations about cities running out of water, cities turning into ghost cities, sea level rises up to an eight storey high building. Don’t you think that is in part why people have got more sceptical.

   Flannery: I don’t, actually, because some of those things are possibilities in the future if we continue polluting as we do. And we’ve already seen impacts in southern Australia on all of those cities. Everyone remembers the water restrictions and so forth. Just because we get a good, wet year doesn’t mean we should forget about the problem. We actually have to deal with this long term drying trend and that means securing our water supply.

   Bolt: You warn about sea level rises up to an eight-storey building.  How soon will that happen?

   Flannery:  Asking that question is it’s a bit like asking a stock analyst when the next stock market crash is going to happen and how big it’s going to be. No one can. We can all see the underlying weakness in the market in the months before the crash..

   Bolt: Thousands of years?

   Flannery: Could be thousands of years.

   Bolt: Tens of thousands of years?

   Flannery: Could be hundreds of years.

   Bolt: Hundreds of years?


 



Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 5:21pm
   Flannery: It could be hundreds of years. The thermo- dynamics of ice sheets are very, very difficult to predict., but what we do know when we look back is the fossil record is that when the world is a degree or two warmer than it is now seal levels rise very significantly - between four and 14 metres above where they are. We can’t say how long it takes for that rise to happen because the fossil record just isn’t good enough, it isn’t accurate enough…

   Bolt: Should we also have nuclear power plants?

   Flannery: In Australia I don’t think so. We’ve got such a great load of assets in the renewable area that I don’t think there’s an argument here that they are ever going to be economic.

   Bolt: Four years ago you did. What changed your mind?

   Flannery: No, I never did.  I’ve always had the same argument.

   Bolt: No, no, no. Here’s your quote:  “Over the next two decades Australians could use nuclear power to replace all our coal –fired power plants. We would then have a power infrastructure like France and in doing so we would have done something great for the world”. That was your quote.

   Flannery:  I don’t recall saying that at all.

   Bolt: You wrote it. You wrote it in The Age. There it is, highlighted.

   Flannery: Well ,very good.

   Bolt: That’s the point, you know, you make these claims and when people confront you , you walk away from them.

   Flannery:  But that was about “may”. No, no, you said “may”. And Australia may be able to do that. It’s not what I recommend and I never have recommended it. But what I do say…

   Bolt:  “We would have done something great for the world”.

   Flannery: But what I do say, nuclear power, right, getting away from coal would be great for the world. Why should we take the most expensive option in this country, which has always been recognised as having the most expensive and difficult option. We are going to see a whole lot of other technologies and innovations which are now well under way which we could use instead of nuclear power.

   Bolt: Such as?

   Flannery: Such as concentrated PV technology, geothermal technology, wave power, wind power…

   Bolt: You’re an investor in geothermal technology , aren’t you?

   Flannery: Yeah, I am. Indeed.

   Bolt: How come you don’t declare that.

   Flannery: Well, I’ve just done it.

   Bolt: You just did because I told you.  You said that geothermal , which you are in investor of, you’ve got a plant, you’ve invested in a plant in Innamincka and you said the technology was really easy. How come.that plant....

   Flannery: Not really that easy.

   Bolt: Well, yes.  It’s actually had technological difficulties and it’s been delayed two years because it’s not that easy, after all, is it?

   Flannery: Well, any new technology is going to be difficult to bring to fruition. It’s a bit like generation for nuclear. There’s challenges all the way. But in terms of geothermal there are many places in the world where you can actually drill down and get into a hot rock body such as ...

   Price: Andrew, we’re going to have to go.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannery_vs_bolt_transcript/

And any sceptical gullies who don't believe the transcript can listen to the broadcast on podcast from MTR
http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=6209

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 5:30pm
As Bolt rightly proves, the scaremongering Flannery, says things and "forgets" them and walks away form them as if he never said it in the first place.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/lets-talk-about-nuclear-power-emandem-other-energy-sources/2006/05/29/1148754933159.html

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 14th, 2011 at 5:31pm

creep wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 5:08pm:
And for the gullies out there
On 11 Jun 05
Flannery's absurd scaremongering that some gullies believed in.
'Predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney's dams dry in just two years.'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1389858.htm


Then on 11 Feb 07
"So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, "

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm


And the ABC is Flannery friendly. Surprised that even the ABC have shot Flannery's absurd preditions.


It's ok Tim, just blame your absurdity onto the weather gods!



Thank you! That's exactly what I was asking for :)

Now we can examine what Flannery said in CONTEXT! And the predictable truth of the matter is that Bolt HAS cherry picked quotes and taken them out of context to suggest Flannery has said things that he hasn't.


Quote:
Professor Flannery says that if Sydney's dams dry up, the city's ground water supply would last just 10 days.

"The worst case scenario for Sydney is that the climate that's existed for the last seven years continues for another two years," he said.

"In that case, Sydney will be facing extreme difficulties with water.

"Large cities are the most vulnerable of all structures to water deficit because you've got 4 million people who need water there just for everyday survival."

He says Melbourne is also vulnerable to water deficits while Adelaide may have problems with water quality.

"South Australia is that we are at the end of the Murray River catchment, and our water can taste awful at times and can be rather poor quality," he said.


There is nothing here that is untrue, or anything here making a definitive prediction, he has only said that IF the current conditions had continued Sydney would likely have run out of water. Thankfully, those conditions DIDN'T prevail and Sydney didn't run out of water. It WAS a close call though and nothing Flannery says here has been disproved by ANY misleadingly cherry picked quotes repeated ad nauseum by Bolt and his legion of lobotomy patients that calls itself his readership.

You blind sheep have been misled by Bolt, which is what you get when you simply accept his claims uncritically and without question. Stupid people are easily manipulated by the likes of Bolt.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 5:33pm

astro_surf wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 5:31pm:
Thank you! That's exactly what I was asking for :)

Now we can examine what Flannery said in CONTEXT! And the predictable truth of the matter is that Bolt HAS cherry picked quotes and taken them out of context to suggest Flannery has said things that he hasn't.



And Flannery was confronted by Bolt about his absurd predictions and tried to deny them as he knew he was proved wrong.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 5:37pm
Not a bad gig if you can get it.
Get someone to pay you $180-190k per year to create something that you can't prove and then to scare up panic.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 14th, 2011 at 5:38pm

astro_surf wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 5:31pm:

creep wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 5:08pm:
And for the gullies out there
On 11 Jun 05
Flannery's absurd scaremongering that some gullies believed in.
'Predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney's dams dry in just two years.'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1389858.htm


Then on 11 Feb 07
"So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, "

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm


And the ABC is Flannery friendly. Surprised that even the ABC have shot Flannery's absurd preditions.


It's ok Tim, just blame your absurdity onto the weather gods!



Thank you! That's exactly what I was asking for :)

Now we can examine what Flannery said in CONTEXT! And the predictable truth of the matter is that Bolt HAS cherry picked quotes and taken them out of context to suggest Flannery has said things that he hasn't.


Quote:
Professor Flannery says that if Sydney's dams dry up, the city's ground water supply would last just 10 days.

"The worst case scenario for Sydney is that the climate that's existed for the last seven years continues for another two years," he said.

"In that case, Sydney will be facing extreme difficulties with water.

"Large cities are the most vulnerable of all structures to water deficit because you've got 4 million people who need water there just for everyday survival."

He says Melbourne is also vulnerable to water deficits while Adelaide may have problems with water quality.

"South Australia is that we are at the end of the Murray River catchment, and our water can taste awful at times and can be rather poor quality," he said.


There is nothing here that is untrue, or anything here making a definitive prediction, he has only said that IF the current conditions had continued Sydney would likely have run out of water. Thankfully, those conditions DIDN'T prevail and Sydney didn't run out of water. It WAS a close call though and nothing Flannery says here has been disproved by ANY misleadingly cherry picked quotes repeated ad nauseum by Bolt and his legion of lobotomy patients that calls itself his readership.

You blind sheep have been misled by Bolt, which is what you get when you simply accept his claims uncritically and without question. Stupid people are easily manipulated by the likes of Bolt.


now you are just being stupid and frankly, deceietful. Flannery DID make predictions which even he belatedly acknowledged and each one was badly wrong.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 5:44pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 5:38pm:
now you are just being stupid and frankly, deceietful. Flannery DID make predictions which even he belatedly acknowledged and each one was badly wrong.




Well the gullies have no where else to go.

Well this thread is now case closed as Flannery needs to apologise to the people of Australia for his absurd claims and scaremongering.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 14th, 2011 at 5:47pm

Quote:
now you are just being stupid and frankly, deceietful. Flannery DID make predictions which even he belatedly acknowledged and each one was badly wrong.


Perhaps you should quote him Longy.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by adelcrow on May 14th, 2011 at 6:20pm
Bolt and Abbott hardly have the credibility to be having a go at anyone. Both of them are nothing but self serving fear mongers who get their energy from whipping up fear and hatred in the vunerable, uneducated and ignorant.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 14th, 2011 at 6:23pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 5:20pm:
The 'ether concept' can be easily dismissed by the simple fact that this theory demanded the speed of light to vary in different directions despite knowing that it is a constant (in a vaccum). Yet prominent scientists supported it.


Massive logical fallacy. Scientists believed in ether until the evidence led them not to believe in it. There is ZERO evidence that a 40% increase in CO2 wouldn't cause exactly the kind of warming we are currently witnessing. Unless you have some? Feel free to present it if you do! ;D


Quote:
You are agian supporting a theory that has multiple hoiles in it without even acknowleding their existence. I repeat: OCEANS emit 100 times as much Co2 as humans and yet you have to repeat the line that we are to blame.


A. It does not have 'multiple hoiles'. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

B. Yes, you keep repeating it even after it is explained to you why your understanding is completely wrong. Allow me to repeat myself; yes, the oceans emit more CO2 than humans (actually it's a lot less than that, the total that the oceans and the biomass combined is a bit less than 50 times what humans emit, but let's not quibble over something as trivial as accuracy) but they also ABSORB more than humans emit. In fact, the absorb about 40% of human emissions, but it is the other 60% per cent that has accumulated in the atmosphere and caused CO2 levels to rise to the highest they have been in 15 million years.


Quote:
and despite the claim that solar radiation is not the cause, there are temperture rises on other planets in line with our own. That should at least give you pause to wonder why when the ONLY common attribute is solar radiation.


They're not "in line" with ours, some planets appear to have warmed while others have cooled. But each planet has it's own climate mechanisms that cause those warmings or coolings. Take Mars for instance, if Mars' atmosphere changed for the same reason as Earth's then we'd be a frozen ball of ice because we'd be much the same temperature as Mars.

On Mars, the temperature is dictated by the amount of dust in the atmosphere, which reflects sunlight, when dust levels fall it warms, when they rise it cools.

On Earth, what prevents the planet from being a ball of ice is the presence of greenhouse gasses, the most important of which is CO2, and it stands to reason when you increase the amount of any particular greenhouse gas by 40% then it is going to change the temperature of the planet. It is absurd to say that Co2 doesn't keep the planet warm.


Quote:
To stand a bit back from this debate Id say it is arrogant to assume man is the only cause of rising temperature or CO2 when there are simply so many variables in play. to assume that it is different this time and that todays warming is  different to the thousand times it has happened in the past is arrogant and in itself unscientific.


It's not a matter of assuming anything. We can measure the rate of Co2 output and we can measure the rate of absorption, we have instrumental measurements showing that CO2 has increased dramatically, we have isotopic evidence proving that the Co2 in the atmosphere comes from burnt fossil fuels. We KNOW that there is an imbalance in what was a finely balanced cycle and that we are causing it.

As for the effects; we can measure the rate at which CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation and know precisely how much heat is trapped by CO2. We have satellites that can directly measure the incoming and outgoing energy and conclusively demonstrate the energy imbalance. We know that the excess heat is accumulating in the oceans, We have instrumental records demonstrating that temperatures are rising, we know that without the sudden rise in CO2 that temperatures should have decreased.

There is nothing, repeat NOTHING that can explain why CO2 wouldn't be warming the planet nor that CO2 isn't causing a current warming or for anything else that could be causing it. You have the grand sum of sweet F all.


Quote:
You are in the thrall of science - which is fine. I love it too. The difference is that you treat scientific pronouncements like holy writ. I dont. Ive seen too many theories come and go to believe everything that is said. Ive seen too many predictions fail miserably to trust everything.


No I don't. I make an effort to understand something before forming a strong opinion on it. While you make arrogant pronouncements that you, as an unqualified person who has demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of basic concepts underpinning the global climate, is in any position to cast judgment on the scientists who have dedicated their lives to understanding the climate systems based entirely on what you have read in a tabloid newspaper.

That is a shocking display of blind ideology over scientific reason, if ever I've seen one.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 14th, 2011 at 6:25pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 5:38pm:
now you are just being stupid and frankly, deceietful. Flannery DID make predictions which even he belatedly acknowledged and each one was badly wrong.


I'm not being deceitful. I am making an argument on the available evidence, if you have any contrary evidence then feel free to present it but until then you're accusations are entirely baseless.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by adelcrow on May 14th, 2011 at 6:27pm

creep wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 5:37pm:
Not a bad gig if you can get it.
Get someone to pay you $180-190k per year to create something that you can't prove and then to scare up panic.



That is chicken feed to someone of Tim Flannerys academic achievments.
You will find Flannery is earning much less than he is entitled to in that position, CEOS of state govt depts get more than double that and according to Abbott its just above the poverty line and should be subsidised with welfare  ;D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 14th, 2011 at 6:35pm
How much does Bolt get paid to spread his misinformation on behalf of Rupert Murdoch?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 14th, 2011 at 6:40pm

adelcrow wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 6:27pm:

creep wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 5:37pm:
Not a bad gig if you can get it.
Get someone to pay you $180-190k per year to create something that you can't prove and then to scare up panic.



That is chicken feed to someone of Tim Flannerys academic achievments.
You will find Flannery is earning much less than he is entitled to in that position, CEOS of state govt depts get more than double that and according to Abbott its just above the poverty line and should be subsidised with welfare  ;D




Flannery wouldnt be a 40 hr @ week gig, maybe 1 day a month at best. Else what else is the scaremongering alarmist doing.

Swan decreed that 150K was "rich enough" so why doesnt he cut the wage to Flannery for doing very little except scaremonger.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 14th, 2011 at 6:46pm
http://media.theage.com.au/news/environment-news/climate-seeing-dramatic-change-2362785.html

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 14th, 2011 at 8:02pm

adelcrow wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 6:20pm:
Bolt and Abbott hardly have the credibility to be having a go at anyone. Both of them are nothing but self serving fear mongers who get their energy from whipping up fear and hatred in the vunerable, uneducated and ignorant.



That is the incisive analysis we have come to expect from you and other proles parading their arts degrees.

Why the bugger do we have still soooo many ignorant and uneducated people, as you put it, even though education at every level has been Whitlamite for 40 years??? Leftist morons captured the education system a long time ago. WHy are they churning out semi-literates?

We all know the answer.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 14th, 2011 at 8:17pm

Soren wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 8:02pm:

adelcrow wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 6:20pm:
Bolt and Abbott hardly have the credibility to be having a go at anyone. Both of them are nothing but self serving fear mongers who get their energy from whipping up fear and hatred in the vunerable, uneducated and ignorant.



That is the incisive analysis we have come to expect from you and other proles parading their arts degrees.

Why the bugger do we have still soooo many ignorant and uneducated people, as you put it, even though education at every level has been Whitlamite for 40 years??? Leftist morons captured the education system a long time ago. WHy are they churning out semi-literates?

We all know the answer.


If ever we needed proof that some this is all about politics for some people. Science isn't left or right and the fact that you people perceive climat4e change to be a lefty issue is exactly the reason why you refuse to believe the evidence. Ideology over rationality, that's all your denial is.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 14th, 2011 at 8:48pm

astro_surf wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 6:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 5:20pm:
The 'ether concept' can be easily dismissed by the simple fact that this theory demanded the speed of light to vary in different directions despite knowing that it is a constant (in a vaccum). Yet prominent scientists supported it.


Massive logical fallacy. Scientists believed in ether until the evidence led them not to believe in it. There is ZERO evidence that a 40% increase in CO2 wouldn't cause exactly the kind of warming we are currently witnessing. Unless you have some? Feel free to present it if you do! ;D


Quote:
You are agian supporting a theory that has multiple hoiles in it without even acknowleding their existence. I repeat: OCEANS emit 100 times as much Co2 as humans and yet you have to repeat the line that we are to blame.


A. It does not have 'multiple hoiles'. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

B. Yes, you keep repeating it even after it is explained to you why your understanding is completely wrong. Allow me to repeat myself; yes, the oceans emit more CO2 than humans (actually it's a lot less than that, the total that the oceans and the biomass combined is a bit less than 50 times what humans emit, but let's not quibble over something as trivial as accuracy) but they also ABSORB more than humans emit. In fact, the absorb about 40% of human emissions, but it is the other 60% per cent that has accumulated in the atmosphere and caused CO2 levels to rise to the highest they have been in 15 million years.

[quote]and despite the claim that solar radiation is not the cause, there are temperture rises on other planets in line with our own. That should at least give you pause to wonder why when the ONLY common attribute is solar radiation.


They're not "in line" with ours, some planets appear to have warmed while others have cooled. But each planet has it's own climate mechanisms that cause those warmings or coolings. Take Mars for instance, if Mars' atmosphere changed for the same reason as Earth's then we'd be a frozen ball of ice because we'd be much the same temperature as Mars.

On Mars, the temperature is dictated by the amount of dust in the atmosphere, which reflects sunlight, when dust levels fall it warms, when they rise it cools.

On Earth, what prevents the planet from being a ball of ice is the presence of greenhouse gasses, the most important of which is CO2, and it stands to reason when you increase the amount of any particular greenhouse gas by 40% then it is going to change the temperature of the planet. It is absurd to say that Co2 doesn't keep the planet warm.


Quote:
To stand a bit back from this debate Id say it is arrogant to assume man is the only cause of rising temperature or CO2 when there are simply so many variables in play. to assume that it is different this time and that todays warming is  different to the thousand times it has happened in the past is arrogant and in itself unscientific.


It's not a matter of assuming anything. We can measure the rate of Co2 output and we can measure the rate of absorption, we have instrumental measurements showing that CO2 has increased dramatically, we have isotopic evidence proving that the Co2 in the atmosphere comes from burnt fossil fuels. We KNOW that there is an imbalance in what was a finely balanced cycle and that we are causing it.

As for the effects; we can measure the rate at which CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation and know precisely how much heat is trapped by CO2. We have satellites that can directly measure the incoming and outgoing energy and conclusively demonstrate the energy imbalance. We know that the excess heat is accumulating in the oceans, We have instrumental records demonstrating that temperatures are rising, we know that without the sudden rise in CO2 that temperatures should have decreased.

There is nothing, repeat NOTHING that can explain why CO2 wouldn't be warming the planet nor that CO2 isn't causing a current warming or for anything else that could be causing it. You have the grand sum of sweet F all.


Quote:
You are in the thrall of science - which is fine. I love it too. The difference is that you treat scientific pronouncements like holy writ. I dont. Ive seen too many theories come and go to believe everything that is said. Ive seen too many predictions fail miserably to trust everything.


No I don't. I make an effort to understand something before forming a strong opinion on it. While you make arrogant pronouncements that you, as an unqualified person who has demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of basic concepts underpinning the global climate, is in any position to cast judgment on the scientists who have dedicated their lives to understanding the climate systems based entirely on what you have read in a tabloid newspaper.

That is a shocking display of blind ideology over scientific reason, if ever I've seen one.
[/quote]
LONGY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FEEDBACK MECHANISMS... ATLEAST HE PRETENDS NOT TOO: THAT'S WHAT THE METH IS FOR!!  ;) ;)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 14th, 2011 at 8:51pm

astro_surf wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 6:35pm:
How much does Bolt get paid to spread his misinformation on behalf of Rupert Murdoch?

THAT IS TOP SECRET INFORMATION MY FRIEND!  :D :D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by adelcrow on May 14th, 2011 at 8:55pm
Abbott even had the nerve to get angry and publicly berrate  Bernie Banton for suggesting Hardies should pay the victims of asbestos related illnesses before they died and not drag it out in court.
I wonder if Abbott thinks its still ok to mine asbestos because the Canadians are still doing it..hey they took those mining jobs.
Remember..jobs at all costs and anyone with a science or medical degree is a cold calculating liar according to Abbott.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 14th, 2011 at 9:49pm

adelcrow wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 8:55pm:
Abbott even had the nerve to get angry and publicly berrate  Bernie Banton for suggesting Hardies should pay the victims of asbestos related illnesses before they died and not drag it out in court.

"Just because a  person is sick doesn't mean he is pure of heart in all things".

A good summation.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 14th, 2011 at 9:52pm
Soren, do you think Abbott lied about Flannery's comments?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by adelcrow on May 14th, 2011 at 9:54pm
Of course he was reffering to Banton having the nerve to take on  Hardies who were dragging cases out in court so the person seeking compenstation would die before the case was finished.

Good one Tony Abbott..thats when I figured out he was an evil turd.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 14th, 2011 at 10:02pm
Time to move on.... THIS COUNTRY WANTS HIGH SPEED RAIL!!!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Equitist on May 14th, 2011 at 10:04pm




Another memorable Abbott moment, was when he proclaimed that homeless people choose to be homeless...

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 14th, 2011 at 10:11pm

Equitist wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 10:04pm:
Another memorable Abbott moment, was when he proclaimed that homeless people choose to be homeless...

...forget abbott: do you want high speed rail?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 14th, 2011 at 10:31pm

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
Soren, do you think Abbott lied about Flannery's comments?

No.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 15th, 2011 at 8:24am

Soren wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 10:31pm:

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
Soren, do you think Abbott lied about Flannery's comments?

No.


So the diagram didn't help you understand the difference between the two statements?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 8:31am

Quote:
The 'ether concept' can be easily dismissed by the simple fact that this theory demanded the speed of light to vary in different directions despite knowing that it is a constant (in a vaccum). Yet prominent scientists supported it.


Massive logical fallacy. Scientists believed in ether until the evidence led them not to believe in it. There is ZERO evidence that a 40% increase in CO2 wouldn't cause exactly the kind of warming we are currently witnessing. Unless you have some? Feel free to present it if you do!


the point was that the absolute proof that it was wrong existed all during the time ether was beleived.  Scientists conveniently believed a theory that was obviosuly wrong because they couldnt comprehend the truth. there is precedence for my reasoning that scientists to day are blindly following a few loud voices - just as they did then.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 15th, 2011 at 8:45am
Longy, being wrong and being a sheep is not the same thing. We all know that science advances by admitting it's mistakes. This is not a rational argument against science or for ignoring the advice of scientists.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 11:00am

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:31am:

Quote:
The 'ether concept' can be easily dismissed by the simple fact that this theory demanded the speed of light to vary in different directions despite knowing that it is a constant (in a vaccum). Yet prominent scientists supported it.


Massive logical fallacy. Scientists believed in ether until the evidence led them not to believe in it. There is ZERO evidence that a 40% increase in CO2 wouldn't cause exactly the kind of warming we are currently witnessing. Unless you have some? Feel free to present it if you do!


the point was that the absolute proof that it was wrong existed all during the time ether was beleived.  Scientists conveniently believed a theory that was obviosuly wrong because they couldnt comprehend the truth. there is precedence for my reasoning that scientists to day are blindly following a few loud voices - just as they did then.


Well, it must be nice for you to have such a vehemently unshakeable belief in the face of all evidence. Kind of like being religious, eh? That must be quite comforting in such tumultuous times.

Unless of course you have the "absolute proof" that AGW is wrong? Because, so far, your 'proof' has consisted entirely of a radical misunderstanding of some fairly basic concepts and I suspect such misunderstanding underpin your entire understanding of the issue. Feel free to present anything you believe constitutes 'proof' and I will be more than happy to explain exactly where you misunderstanding lies.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 11:02am

Soren wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 10:31pm:

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
Soren, do you think Abbott lied about Flannery's comments?

No.



Yes, well, why let reality stand in the way of a rigidly held ideological belief? After all, that's about the only way one could deny the mountains of evidence that supports AGW. A denier needs to maintain his belief structures intact some way or another!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 11:04am

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 8:48pm:

LONGY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FEEDBACK MECHANISMS... ATLEAST HE PRETENDS NOT TOO: THAT'S WHAT THE METH IS FOR!!  ;) ;)[/quote]

Doesn't understand quite a few things by the look of it.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 15th, 2011 at 11:43am

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:24am:

Soren wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 10:31pm:

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
Soren, do you think Abbott lied about Flannery's comments?

No.


So the diagram didn't help you understand the difference between the two statements?


This is the useless squabble about 'lying' thread - useless squabble about some diagrams is two doors down.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 11:48am

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:43am:

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:24am:

Soren wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 10:31pm:

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
Soren, do you think Abbott lied about Flannery's comments?

No.


So the diagram didn't help you understand the difference between the two statements?


This is the useless squabble about 'lying' thread - useless squabble about some diagrams is two doors down.


By 'useless squabble' I assume you mean an argument you know you can't win because you are on the side of anti-science deniers.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 15th, 2011 at 11:49am
Assume away - what else can you do with your head in a jar?? I am not at all anti-science. I am just anti-stupid. Not the same thing.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 11:57am
No, you're anti-science. You have decided that a vast chunk of scientific understanding can be ignored because it doesn't suit your ideological belief structure. You're just like a creationist.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 15th, 2011 at 12:08pm

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:43am:

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:24am:

Soren wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 10:31pm:

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
Soren, do you think Abbott lied about Flannery's comments?

No.


So the diagram didn't help you understand the difference between the two statements?


This is the useless squabble about 'lying' thread - useless squabble about some diagrams is two doors down.


Is this not stupid Soren? Can you explain how you managed to interpret Abbott's comments as anything but a lie?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 15th, 2011 at 12:52pm
To you? No. I don't think I could explain anything to you, FD.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 12:58pm

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 12:52pm:
To you? No. I don't think I could explain anything to you, FD.


The reason you trade in insults rather than arguments is because you KNOW that you have nothing, Bolt and Abbott have sorely misrepresented Flannery but you're too gutless to admit that your ideological brethren could be so duplicitous.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 15th, 2011 at 1:02pm
So basically Abbott lied and you now try desperately to change the topic, but as soon as you are offered a chance to defend Abbott, you suddenly get all shy on us?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 1:56pm

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:45am:
Longy, being wrong and being a sheep is not the same thing. We all know that science advances by admitting it's mistakes. This is not a rational argument against science or for ignoring the advice of scientists.


That logic has more holes than swiss cheese. SCience is quite reticient about admitting mistakes generally. and  IM not saying we should IGNORE advice as a general principle. Im saying we should question and criticise and ask for proof before committing to huge tasks or policies on the say-so of science. They've been terribly wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. to assume they are right now without much evidence and a lot of controversy is irresponsible. I want some proof. REAL proof. predictions that are fulfilled, models that work. Genuine consensus among CLIMATE scientists not just chemists, economist and train engineers.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 1:59pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:57am:
No, you're anti-science. You have decided that a vast chunk of scientific understanding can be ignored because it doesn't suit your ideological belief structure. You're just like a creationist.


now there's a funny statement. science itself routinely throws out a 'vast chunk of scientific understanding' in its pursuit of facts. new advances in science throws out old models and repalces them with newer, better ones. it is in fact luddites who cling to the old ways and cant upgrade who are the problem. And with your attitude you are tomorrows Luddite - unable to embrace new ideas, technoligies or theories.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 2:01pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:56pm:

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:45am:
Longy, being wrong and being a sheep is not the same thing. We all know that science advances by admitting it's mistakes. This is not a rational argument against science or for ignoring the advice of scientists.


That logic has more holes than swiss cheese. SCience is quite reticient about admitting mistakes generally. and  IM not saying we should IGNORE advice as a general principle. Im saying we should question and criticise and ask for proof before committing to huge tasks or policies on the say-so of science. They've been terribly wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. to assume they are right now without much evidence and a lot of controversy is irresponsible. I want some proof. REAL proof. predictions that are fulfilled, models that work. Genuine consensus among CLIMATE scientists not just chemists, economist and train engineers.

longy doesn't know what science is....

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 2:02pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:57am:
No, you're anti-science. You have decided that a vast chunk of scientific understanding can be ignored because it doesn't suit your ideological belief structure. You're just like a creationist.


now there's a funny statement. science itself routinely throws out a 'vast chunk of scientific understanding' in its pursuit of facts. new advances in science throws out old models and repalces them with newer, better ones. it is in fact luddites who cling to the old ways and cant upgrade who are the problem. And with your attitude you are tomorrows Luddite - unable to embrace new ideas, technoligies or theories.

longy doesn't know what science is...

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 2:05pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:02am:

Soren wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 10:31pm:

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
Soren, do you think Abbott lied about Flannery's comments?

No.



Yes, well, why let reality stand in the way of a rigidly held ideological belief? After all, that's about the only way one could deny the mountains of evidence that supports AGW. A denier needs to maintain his belief structures intact some way or another!

He is not a party. He is not a majority!

He has pinned his flag to Abbott......  8-) 8-)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 2:07pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:04am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 14th, 2011 at 8:48pm:

LONGY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FEEDBACK MECHANISMS... ATLEAST HE PRETENDS NOT TOO: THAT'S WHAT THE METH IS FOR!!  ;) ;)


Doesn't understand quite a few things by the look of it.[/quote]
He knows Abbott can't remain leader in a world of exciting change that needs embracing!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 15th, 2011 at 2:33pm

Quote:
and  IM not saying we should IGNORE advice as a general principle.


So only when it suits your political agenda? How Abbott's approach of simply lying about it?


Quote:
Im saying we should question and criticise and ask for proof before committing to huge tasks or policies on the say-so of science.


But science does not work with proof. The closest you get is failure over a long period of time to disprove. Are you saying we should ignore scientific advice and demand proof of everything?


Quote:
They've been terribly wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. to assume they are right now without much evidence and a lot of controversy is irresponsible.


No it isn't Longy. There are rational ways to manage risk. Your approach is not a rational one.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 2:40pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:57am:
No, you're anti-science. You have decided that a vast chunk of scientific understanding can be ignored because it doesn't suit your ideological belief structure. You're just like a creationist.


now there's a funny statement. science itself routinely throws out a 'vast chunk of scientific understanding' in its pursuit of facts. new advances in science throws out old models and repalces them with newer, better ones. it is in fact luddites who cling to the old ways and cant upgrade who are the problem. And with your attitude you are tomorrows Luddite - unable to embrace new ideas, technoligies or theories.


You keep saying this but where is the alternative explanation that is going 'replace' basic laws of physics? Either provide some evidence or STFU with this pathetically weak line of reasoning until you DO have something! Science only discards ideas when the evidence leads it to do so. Where's the evidence? I mean, science might one day find out that smoking DOESN'T cause cancer but that's no reason to keep smoking, is it? Science might one day replace thne theory of gravity but you don't see people jumping out of planes without parachutes, do you?

Ridiculous line of reasoning is ridiculous.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 2:40pm
The Libbos can't get over the fact CLIMATE CHANGE is a risk mangement issue.....

The Libbos who can't get over this don't understand the concept of MARKET FAILURE!!!

I believe the forum at large has asserted this, uncontested, as ECONOMICS 101!

LOL LOLLYBAG LOL!  8-)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 2:46pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:56pm:
I want some proof. REAL proof. predictions that are fulfilled,






Quote:
models that work.





Quote:
Genuine consensus among CLIMATE scientists not just chemists, economist and train engineers.




http://wotsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/climate-consensus-infographic.jpg?w=377&h=240

The problem here isn't a lack of proof, it's you getting you information solely from people who are quite prepared to lie about the re being no proof for things that there is plenty of proof for.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 2:46pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 2:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:57am:
No, you're anti-science. You have decided that a vast chunk of scientific understanding can be ignored because it doesn't suit your ideological belief structure. You're just like a creationist.


now there's a funny statement. science itself routinely throws out a 'vast chunk of scientific understanding' in its pursuit of facts. new advances in science throws out old models and repalces them with newer, better ones. it is in fact luddites who cling to the old ways and cant upgrade who are the problem. And with your attitude you are tomorrows Luddite - unable to embrace new ideas, technoligies or theories.


You keep saying this but where is the alternative explanation that is going 'replace' basic laws of physics? Either provide some evidence or STFU with this pathetically weak line of reasoning until you DO have something! Science only discards ideas when the evidence leads it to do so. Where's the evidence? I mean, science might one day find out that smoking DOESN'T cause cancer but that's no reason to keep smoking, is it? Science might one day replace thne theory of gravity but you don't see people jumping out of planes without parachutes, do you?

Ridiculous line of reasoning is ridiculous.

SMOKING THE METH AND PRETENDING THAT FREE MARKETS ACTUALLY EXIST IS RIDICULOUS!!!

FREE MARKETS REQUIRE PERFECT INFORMATION FLOW... HECK PERFECT INFORMATION FULLSTOP, THE WHOLE NOTION OF SCIENTIFIC ENDEVOUR DOESN'T FIT IN THE IMAGINARY PICTURE THAT IS 'FREE MARKETS'!

GEEZ I LOVE JIM BEAM BLACK IN A CAN ON A SUNDAY MORNING...

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 2:49pm
Ten predictions made by climate scientists that have come true (or are becoming true)

1) That the Earth would warm as more CO2 was put into the atmosphere (Svante Arrhenius in 1893)

2) That we'd begin to see noticable changes to Earth's climate by around 2000 (some IPCC scientists ).

3) That sea-level would start rising

4) That Earth's Ice would start melting rapidly (James Hanson)

5) That hurricanes would increase in intensity (this one goes back to Alfred Russel Wallace in 1900)

6) That species would start going extinct as a result of climate change.

7) That Australia would start drying out (Hadley Centre scientists)

8) That tropical diseases would increase

9) That food crops would be adversely affected

10) That the CO2 would begin to acidify the ocean

The ten biggest changes to the weather wrought by climate change

1) Shorter winters

2) Less runoff into dams and reservoirs in many regions of the world

3) More violent and longer hurricanes

4) Less chilly nights

5) Less predictable seasonal conditions

6) Less snow

7) More heat waves

8) Less rain in many regions at various seasons

9) More severe storms in the North Sea and parts of the southern Ocean

10) Generally warmer conditions

The ten places in the world / animals in the world most endangered by global warming

1) The glorious Cape Botanic province in South Africa, particularly the succulent Karoo flora.

2) Amphibians everywhere (a third of all species are already gravely endangered or extinct.

3) Coral reefs

4) Species on mountaintops (many populations are already extinct.

5) The tundra

6) The Arctic Ocean

7) The Antarctic Peninsula

8) Australia - where the drying trend is already precipitating a new wave of declines and extinctions.

9) The Amazon, where drying will affect forests and rivers

10) The boreal forests, here pest infestations are destroying vast areas of trees.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 3:05pm

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

Quote:
and  IM not saying we should IGNORE advice as a general principle.


So only when it suits your political agenda? How Abbott's approach of simply lying about it?

[quote]Im saying we should question and criticise and ask for proof before committing to huge tasks or policies on the say-so of science.


But science does not work with proof. The closest you get is failure over a long period of time to disprove. Are you saying we should ignore scientific advice and demand proof of everything?


Quote:
They've been terribly wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. to assume they are right now without much evidence and a lot of controversy is irresponsible.


No it isn't Longy. There are rational ways to manage risk. Your approach is not a rational one.[/quote]

who said anything about a political agenda? When the libs were supporting it i still opposed it. it is what is called a PRINCIPLED position.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 3:07pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:05pm:

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

Quote:
and  IM not saying we should IGNORE advice as a general principle.


So only when it suits your political agenda? How Abbott's approach of simply lying about it?

[quote]Im saying we should question and criticise and ask for proof before committing to huge tasks or policies on the say-so of science.


But science does not work with proof. The closest you get is failure over a long period of time to disprove. Are you saying we should ignore scientific advice and demand proof of everything?

[quote]They've been terribly wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. to assume they are right now without much evidence and a lot of controversy is irresponsible.


No it isn't Longy. There are rational ways to manage risk. Your approach is not a rational one.[/quote]

who said anything about a political agenda? When the libs were supporting it i still opposed it. it is what is called a PRINCIPLED position. [/quote]


As did half the Liberal Party, so what's your point exactly? You have still taken a political position to deny a scientific issue. That's a political agenda if ever I've seen one.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 3:10pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 2:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:56pm:
I want some proof. REAL proof. predictions that are fulfilled,






Quote:
models that work.




[quote]Genuine consensus among CLIMATE scientists not just chemists, economist and train engineers.




http://wotsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/climate-consensus-infographic.jpg?w=377&h=240

The problem here isn't a lack of proof, it's you getting you information solely from people who are quite prepared to lie about the re being no proof for things that there is plenty of proof for.
[/quote]

i could get you articles from the 50s that comprehensively show how smoking is good for you. and the bulk of science agreed.

Consensus is not a substitute for being right.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 3:13pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 2:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:56pm:
I want some proof. REAL proof. predictions that are fulfilled,






Quote:
models that work.




[quote]Genuine consensus among CLIMATE scientists not just chemists, economist and train engineers.




http://wotsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/climate-consensus-infographic.jpg?w=377&h=240

The problem here isn't a lack of proof, it's you getting you information solely from people who are quite prepared to lie about the re being no proof for things that there is plenty of proof for.
[/quote]

and if they are so convinced then why does every climate model fail on the most basic task - retrofitting the model onto past history? why does every single climate prediction fail - often miserably.

if their confidence comes from their models then why are those models ALWAYS wrong?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 3:14pm
Consensus is not a substitute for being right: but you are probably wrong!  ;) ;)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 3:16pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:13pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 2:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:56pm:
I want some proof. REAL proof. predictions that are fulfilled,






Quote:
models that work.




[quote]Genuine consensus among CLIMATE scientists not just chemists, economist and train engineers.




http://wotsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/climate-consensus-infographic.jpg?w=377&h=240

The problem here isn't a lack of proof, it's you getting you information solely from people who are quite prepared to lie about the re being no proof for things that there is plenty of proof for.


and if they are so convinced then why does every climate model fail on the most basic task - retrofitting the model onto past history? why does every single climate prediction fail - often miserably.

if their confidence comes from their models then why are those models ALWAYS wrong?[/quote]
NEVER HEARD OF CHAOS THEORY AY?!!?  ;D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 3:17pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:10pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 2:46pm:
i could get you articles from the 50s that comprehensively show how smoking is good for you. and the bulk of science agreed.

Consensus is not a substitute for being right.


LOL, first you want a REAL consensus, then when you are shown one you say that consensus is meaningless.

Oh, and I bet you can't find such articles, there was never a consensus that smoking was harmless, in the fifties it was well known to cause cancer but there was a very slick PR campaign to DENY that evidence (sound familiar? It should). And the fact that you use smoking as an example is pretty hilarious because not only does the denial industry use the EXACT same tactics as the smoking lobby did, quite often it involves the EXACT same people promoting the respective denial! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! :D

http://www.desmogblog.com/frederick-seitz-dead

http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

[quote]and if they are so convinced then why does every climate model fail on the most basic task - retrofitting the model onto past history? why does every single climate prediction fail - often miserably.

if their confidence comes from their models then why are those models ALWAYS wrong?
Back to top      
 


Short answer - they don't. Once again, you have been badly misled by the ideological apparatchiks that tell you how to think. This highlights the folly of only drawing on sources of information that confirm your preconceived biases :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 3:21pm

Quote:
1) That the Earth would warm as more CO2 was put into the atmosphere (Svante Arrhenius in 1893)


a circular argument based on the assumption that CO2 is a cause rather than an effect.


Quote:
2) That we'd begin to see noticable changes to Earth's climate by around 2000 (some IPCC scientists ).


expect there HASNT been any such events.


Quote:
3) That sea-level would start rising


but it hasnt outside the usual cyclical rise and fall of a few mm


Quote:
4) That Earth's Ice would start melting rapidly (James Hanson)


theres that pesky prediction of the artic ice disappearing which simply refuses to happen. and the antarctic has actually MORE ice on one side of the continent. bummer that one.


Quote:
5) That hurricanes would increase in intensity (this one goes back to Alfred Russel Wallace in 1900)


the worlds foremost expert on hurricanes explicity rejetced that notion saying that hurricanes had been far worse in the past.


Quote:
6) That species would start going extinct as a result of climate change.


theyve been going extinct for a couple centuries now. nothing new.


Quote:
7) That Australia would start drying out (Hadley Centre scientists)


tell that to QLD NSW VIC and SA now inundated with RECORD rain. EPIC FAIL.


Quote:
8) That tropical diseases would increase


unsupported fanciful imagination


Quote:
9) That food crops would be adversely affected


simply not true. food supply problems are because of population growth and war - not climate.


Quote:
10) That the CO2 would begin to acidify the ocean


despite the fact that the CO2 level is 1/10th of what it has been in histry.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 3:23pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:05pm:

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

Quote:
and  IM not saying we should IGNORE advice as a general principle.


So only when it suits your political agenda? How Abbott's approach of simply lying about it?

[quote]Im saying we should question and criticise and ask for proof before committing to huge tasks or policies on the say-so of science.


But science does not work with proof. The closest you get is failure over a long period of time to disprove. Are you saying we should ignore scientific advice and demand proof of everything?

[quote]They've been terribly wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. to assume they are right now without much evidence and a lot of controversy is irresponsible.


No it isn't Longy. There are rational ways to manage risk. Your approach is not a rational one.


who said anything about a political agenda? When the libs were supporting it i still opposed it. it is what is called a PRINCIPLED position. [/quote]


As did half the Liberal Party, so what's your point exactly? You have still taken a political position to deny a scientific issue. That's a political agenda if ever I've seen one.[/quote]

and labor supporting it, isnt??? why exactly do u think Gillard put up a carbon tax??? PRINCIPLE??? it was demned of her from the Greens in order to be PM. there is nothing more politically motivated that that.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 3:26pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:13pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 2:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:56pm:
I want some proof. REAL proof. predictions that are fulfilled,






Quote:
models that work.




[quote]Genuine consensus among CLIMATE scientists not just chemists, economist and train engineers.




http://wotsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/climate-consensus-infographic.jpg?w=377&h=240

The problem here isn't a lack of proof, it's you getting you information solely from people who are quite prepared to lie about the re being no proof for things that there is plenty of proof for.


and if they are so convinced then why does every climate model fail on the most basic task - retrofitting the model onto past history? why does every single climate prediction fail - often miserably.

if their confidence comes from their models then why are those models ALWAYS wrong?

NEVER HEARD OF CHAOS THEORY AY?!!?  ;D[/quote]

obviously youve HEARD of it yet have zero understanding.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 3:44pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:21pm:

Quote:
1) That the Earth would warm as more CO2 was put into the atmosphere (Svante Arrhenius in 1893)


a circular argument based on the assumption that CO2 is a cause rather than an effect.


It's been shown to you why this is an erroneous assumption on your part. CO2 definitively and demonstrably DOES cause warming, and it is easily proved:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY

Pretty basic stuff. Also, care to comment on why the Earth isn't a giant ball lof ice, if indeed CO2 DOESN'T warm the planet?


Quote:
2) That we'd begin to see noticable changes to Earth's climate by around 2000 (some IPCC scientists ).


expect there HASNT been any such events.[/quote]

Yes there has.


Quote:
3) That sea-level would start rising


but it hasnt outside the usual cyclical rise and fall of a few mm[/quote]

Sea rise isn't 'cyclical', you nonce. We can measure the rate of thermal expansion which, unlike your simplistic assumption about CO2, really IS a function of temperature change.


Quote:
4) That Earth's Ice would start melting rapidly (James Hanson)


theres that pesky prediction of the artic ice disappearing which simply refuses to happen. and the antarctic has actually MORE ice on one side of the continent. bummer that one.[/quote]

Actually, the Arctic sea ice has declined WAy faster than anyone could ever have predicted

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3dYhC_AlYw&feature=player_embedded

Once again you've been sorely misled.

As for the Antarctic, scientists have predicted for well over thirty years that initially AGW would lead to an increase in Antarctic ice mass in Eastern Antarctic (due to increased precipitation and the nature of the Southern ocean which would circulate a lot of cold water), while the Western Antarctic would warm. Well, the Western Antarctic is in a state of decline as the massive collapse of the Larsen B ice sheet demonstrated so graphically. While the Eastern Antarctic is for the first time showing signs of mass loss decades and deecades before anyone had previously predicted:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html


Quote:
5) That hurricanes would increase in intensity (this one goes back to Alfred Russel Wallace in 1900)


the worlds foremost expert on hurricanes explicity rejetced that notion saying that hurricanes had been far worse in the past.[/quote]

Source?


Quote:
6) That species would start going extinct as a result of climate change.


theyve been going extinct for a couple centuries now. nothing new.[/quote]

No but the CAUSE is, and that's the point.


Quote:
7) That Australia would start drying out (Hadley Centre scientists)


tell that to QLD NSW VIC and SA now inundated with RECORD rain. EPIC FAIL.[/quote]

Due to La Nina, which has been amplified by the record high Pacific Ocean temps and have resulted in u unprecedented rainfall events and flooding emergencies across the southern hemisphere. And, we will soon go back to an extreme and extended El Nino, cycles which have demonstrably gotten worse in terms of intensity and duration, longer and hotter, meaning more intense droughts of greater intensity and duration - just like climate scientists have been opredicting for over thirty years.


Quote:
8) That tropical diseases would increase


unsupported fanciful imagination[/quote]

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=tropical+disease+increase+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart


Quote:
9) That food crops would be adversely affected


simply not true. food supply problems are because of population growth and war - not climate.[/quote]

For starters, this article was written a year or two BEFORE the global food shock, however there is very GOOD evidence that climate change played a critical role in the emergency. We'll get to that later.

Secondly, he is 100% right. Climate change HAS adversely affected food crops, and it will get worse.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-impacts-staple-crop-yields


Quote:
10) That the CO2 would begin to acidify the ocean


despite the fact that the CO2 level is 1/10th of what it has been in histry.[/quote]

Yes, and the ocean was much, much more acidic:

http://theotherco2problem.wordpress.com/what-do-studies-about-past-climate-and-ocean-ph-tell-us/

So, once again I have demonstrated that you understanding of the issue is based on serious misconceptions and that this is because you limit your information sources to those that confirm your biases becasue this is primarily a political, not scientific issue, for you.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by mozzaok on May 15th, 2011 at 3:46pm
The biggest con that the Climate Change Denialists managed, was to attach their campaign of misinformation, and deceit, to the right leaning side of politics, where people take up the denialist position, just because they have always supported political views from that side of politics.

Facts do not change to suit people's political agendas, and it is very disconcerting to see people accepting the lies of the Denialist campaign, without question.
The rejection of proper scientific scholarship, in favour of political PR style spruiking, would be amusing, if it were not an issue with such huge ramifications for future generations, and the ones who are knowingly promoting known lies, should be held accountable.

The burden of proof has become such a misused term in this issue as to have become almost meaningless, when the same people who demand further proof from climate scientists, promote a ridiculous conspiracy theory that ALL the world's climate scientists are corrupt, and secretly colluding to perpetrate a massive global swindle.
So they create a no win situation where all the valid evidence placed in front of them, can be discounted as unreliable, because of their belief in a massive conspiracy, which is self evident to them, despite the total lack of credibility for such a preposterous belief.

So, when you have ruled out all the real experts in the world as being invalid, who does that leave you to gather your facts from?

Who, do the denialists believe??? (and if they answer that, we then need to know why?)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 3:46pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:23pm:
and labor supporting it, isnt??? why exactly do u think Gillard put up a carbon tax??? PRINCIPLE??? it was demned of her from the Greens in order to be PM. there is nothing more politically motivated that that.


Of course it is. You've got me pegged wrong if you think I give two s**ts about Labor and/or think that their motivations are in anyway pure. Once again you prove without a shadow of doubt that this is ALL about politics for you. You deny science because it doesn't fit with you political agenda

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by it_is_the_light on May 15th, 2011 at 3:52pm
this planet is traversing our sun

solar maximum solar minimum 365 days 1 year

[1 cycle]

further

the solar system is traversing the central sun alcione 26,000 years

[1 cycle]

some 'scientists' find a way to manipulate data proven on record

leaked emails mistruths about incorrect and manipulated data toward

the assertion that man makes climate change?

so they can make money off of a natural cyclical position of being

regarding the earths point in linear time in the 3rd dimension

re: pyhsical universe

the only constant is change

the earth will never stay the same

it is always evolving

the powers that were refuse to release the free energy and tax

to the eyeballs the combustion engine and the fuels that power this

your time is overwith

you have had you chances and your power is gone

all is in accordance with the divine plan

all the data mearly reflects a natural change regarding temperatures

and solar maxima/minima

you may believe as you do so wish

all satanic freemasonics will be departing very soon...trust you've had

fun,

you will be going unto that which you have invoked

you may take this forgiveness with you on your travels

namaste

-:)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 4:13pm

Quote:
4) That Earth's Ice would start melting rapidly (James Hanson)


theres that pesky prediction of the artic ice disappearing which simply refuses to happen. and the antarctic has actually MORE ice on one side of the continent. bummer that one.


Actually, the Arctic sea ice has declined WAy faster than anyone could ever have predicted
[/quote]

they have been predicting ice-free summers for the past 3 years and since that has never happened how do you claim it is FASTER than predicted?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 4:14pm

it_is_the_light wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:52pm:
this planet is traversing our sun

solar maximum solar minimum 365 days 1 year

[1 cycle]


Yet 2010 was the deepest solar minimum in a century, we had a La Nina ENSO and it STILL managed to be tied as the warmest year on record.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/10/nasa-hottest-year-on-record-deepest-solar-minimum/

That should set alarm bells ringing for even the most sceptical (note: I use the word here in its real sense, not in the sense that the deniers use it in) of souls.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 4:16pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:13pm:
they have been predicting ice-free summers for the past 3 years and since that has never happened how do you claim it is FASTER than predicted?


Source or it didn't happen. I'm tired of correcting your unsupported statements.

And this is what I mean, the rate of decline accelerating faster and deeper than the worst case scenario projected by climate models. I've made this point to you before, climate models are only wrong in the sense that they tend to conservatively underestimate the impact of AGW.




Quote:
Polar Ice Sheets Melting Faster Than Predicted

The thick glaciers covering Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than scientists expected

By Lauren Morello and ClimateWire  | March 9, 2011 | 11

Ice loss from the massive ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating, according to a new study.

If the trend continues, ice sheets could become the dominant contributor to sea level rise sooner than scientists had predicted, concludes the research, which will be published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"The traditional view of the loss of land ice on Earth has been that mountain glaciers and ice caps are the dominant contributors, and ice sheets are following behind," said study co-author Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine. "In this study, we are showing that ice sheets, mountain glaciers and ice caps are neck-and-neck."

But that could soon change, Rignot said, because the rate at which ice sheets are losing mass is increasing three times faster than the rate of ice loss from mountain glaciers and ice caps.

"I don't think we expected ice sheets to run neck-and-neck with mountain glaciers, which basically sit in a warmer climate, this soon," he said. "At the same time, the mass loss on the ice sheet is not very large compared to how much mass they store."

Rignot was part of a research team that also included scientists from Utrecht University in the Netherlands and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

The researchers based their analysis on a comparison of two different methods to measure ice loss.

Continued...

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 4:17pm

Quote:
7) That Australia would start drying out (Hadley Centre scientists)



tell that to QLD NSW VIC and SA now inundated with RECORD rain. EPIC FAIL.


Due to La Nina, which has been amplified by the record high Pacific Ocean temps and have resulted in u unprecedented rainfall events and flooding emergencies across the southern hemisphere. And, we will soon go back to an extreme and extended El Nino, cycles which have demonstrably gotten worse in terms of intensity and duration, longer and hotter, meaning more intense droughts of greater intensity and duration - just like climate scientists have been opredicting for over thirty years.
[/quote]

these kinds of arguments are why we dont take you CC hysterics seriously. When theres a drought it is CC. when it rains, it is CC. the fact that it mirrors events of 110 years ago is of no consequence.  When it is hot it is CC when it is cold it is CC.

make up your mind. you want to claim ALL EVENTS as proof of your hypothesis. why do you think the public is wearying of your incessant rantings? because you blame everything - good and bad - on CC.  You sound ridiculous.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by it_is_the_light on May 15th, 2011 at 4:19pm
Yet 2010 was the deepest solar minimum in a century, we had a La Nina ENSO and it STILL managed to be tied as the warmest year on record.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/10/nasa-hottest-year-on-record-deepest-solar-...

____________

disinformationalistical science data proven on record copenhagen

lies within the emails of climate data scientists caught out in

calousional mistruth agendas...

these lies do not effect unto the truth and the climate change

agenda brigade again fail caught pushing lies and snake oil..

forgiven

namaste

-:)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 4:20pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:13pm:

Quote:
4) That Earth's Ice would start melting rapidly (James Hanson)


theres that pesky prediction of the artic ice disappearing which simply refuses to happen. and the antarctic has actually MORE ice on one side of the continent. bummer that one.


Actually, the Arctic sea ice has declined WAy faster than anyone could ever have predicted


they have been predicting ice-free summers for the past 3 years and since that has never happened how do you claim it is FASTER than predicted?


Source or it didn't happen. I'm tired of correcting your unsupported statements.


Quote:
Polar Ice Sheets Melting Faster Than Predicted

The thick glaciers covering Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than scientists expected

By Lauren Morello and ClimateWire  | March 9, 2011 | 11

Ice loss from the massive ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating, according to a new study.

If the trend continues, ice sheets could become the dominant contributor to sea level rise sooner than scientists had predicted, concludes the research, which will be published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"The traditional view of the loss of land ice on Earth has been that mountain glaciers and ice caps are the dominant contributors, and ice sheets are following behind," said study co-author Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine. "In this study, we are showing that ice sheets, mountain glaciers and ice caps are neck-and-neck."

But that could soon change, Rignot said, because the rate at which ice sheets are losing mass is increasing three times faster than the rate of ice loss from mountain glaciers and ice caps.

"I don't think we expected ice sheets to run neck-and-neck with mountain glaciers, which basically sit in a warmer climate, this soon," he said. "At the same time, the mass loss on the ice sheet is not very large compared to how much mass they store."

Rignot was part of a research team that also included scientists from Utrecht University in the Netherlands and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

The researchers based their analysis on a comparison of two different methods to measure ice loss.

Continued...
[/quote]

it was mentioned a number of times in the news about the 2008 summer being predicted to be the first one that was ice-free. the embarassment was that it was actually a bigger ice area than the previous year. 2009 was the same.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 4:22pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:23pm:
and labor supporting it, isnt??? why exactly do u think Gillard put up a carbon tax??? PRINCIPLE??? it was demned of her from the Greens in order to be PM. there is nothing more politically motivated that that.


Of course it is. You've got me pegged wrong if you think I give two s**ts about Labor and/or think that their motivations are in anyway pure. Once again you prove without a shadow of doubt that this is ALL about politics for you. You deny science because it doesn't fit with you political agenda


just a clue - a possible clue to understanding my post.

ITS NOT ABOUT YOU!!!

It was about Gillard and HER motivations for the carbon tax which were purely political. try reading what is actually said next time rather than inventing your own interpretations.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 4:23pm

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:46pm:
The biggest con that the Climate Change Denialists managed, was to attach their campaign of misinformation, and deceit, to the right leaning side of politics, where people take up the denialist position, just because they have always supported political views from that side of politics.

Facts do not change to suit people's political agendas, and it is very disconcerting to see people accepting the lies of the Denialist campaign, without question.
The rejection of proper scientific scholarship, in favour of political PR style spruiking, would be amusing, if it were not an issue with such huge ramifications for future generations, and the ones who are knowingly promoting known lies, should be held accountable.

The burden of proof has become such a misused term in this issue as to have become almost meaningless, when the same people who demand further proof from climate scientists, promote a ridiculous conspiracy theory that ALL the world's climate scientists are corrupt, and secretly colluding to perpetrate a massive global swindle.
So they create a no win situation where all the valid evidence placed in front of them, can be discounted as unreliable, because of their belief in a massive conspiracy, which is self evident to them, despite the total lack of credibility for such a preposterous belief.

So, when you have ruled out all the real experts in the world as being invalid, who does that leave you to gather your facts from?

Who, do the denialists believe??? (and if they answer that, we then need to know why?)


Id debate your position but we know what you do to people who oppose your beliefs. you ban them.

Typical left-wing behaviour.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 4:30pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:17pm:
these kinds of arguments are why we dont take you CC hysterics seriously. When theres a drought it is CC. when it rains, it is CC. the fact that it mirrors events of 110 years ago is of no consequence.  When it is hot it is CC when it is cold it is CC.

make up your mind. you want to claim ALL EVENTS as proof of your hypothesis. why do you think the public is wearying of your incessant rantings? because you blame everything - good and bad - on CC.  You sound ridiculous.


Scientific ones? Maybe the problem here isn't with the arguments as it is with your grasp of the problem at hand? Warming the planet will impact every weather system on the planet, so yes it will make both droughts AND floods worse. That's the sort of thing that happens when you alter a value within any kind of highly dynamic system. You claim to understand chaos theory, maybe you need to go back and revisit it and realise that small changes in chaotic systems can have massive effects?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 4:37pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:20pm:
it was mentioned a number of times in the news about the 2008 summer being predicted to be the first one that was ice-free. the embarassment was that it was actually a bigger ice area than the previous year. 2009 was the same.


Predicted by whom? Hence why I asked for the source. Either you have one or you don't but the fact of the matter is that trending decline in sea ice is undeniable and is happening at a far greater pace than has been projected by climate models.



Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 15th, 2011 at 4:38pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:17pm:
these kinds of arguments are why we dont take you CC hysterics seriously. When theres a drought it is CC. when it rains, it is CC. the fact that it mirrors events of 110 years ago is of no consequence.  When it is hot it is CC when it is cold it is CC.

make up your mind. you want to claim ALL EVENTS as proof of your hypothesis. why do you think the public is wearying of your incessant rantings? because you blame everything - good and bad - on CC.  You sound ridiculous.


Scientific ones? Maybe the problem here isn't with the arguments as it is with your grasp of the problem at hand? Warming the planet will impact every weather system on the planet, so yes it will make both droughts AND floods worse. That's the sort of thing that happens when you alter a value within any kind of highly dynamic system. You claim to understand chaos theory, maybe you need to go back and revisit it and realise that small changes in chaotic systems can have massive effects?


you fail to understand the credibility of claiming ALL weather events as evidence of CC. the recent rought in australia was not unprecedented. nor was the floods. but you want to claim both.

it never ends. you claim the sea is rising when an island SINKS. it all getrs a bit ludicrous in the end.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 4:39pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:22pm:
[quote author=astro_surf link=1305115643/165#166 date=1305438410]

just a clue - a possible clue to understanding my post.

ITS NOT ABOUT YOU!!!

It was about Gillard and HER motivations for the carbon tax which were purely political. try reading what is actually said next time rather than inventing your own interpretations.



Yes but I was talking about YOUR political agenda and your reply was 'what about labor?' Of course a political party is going to be politically motivated, you're just trying to change the subject to take the heat off your inability to credibly justify your beliefs in the inadequacy of science.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 4:46pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:38pm:
you fail to understand the credibility of claiming ALL weather events as evidence of CC. the recent rought in australia was not unprecedented. nor was the floods. but you want to claim both.


I'm not talking about weather events, I'm talking about the impact on the systems that drive the weather events. The Pacific Ocean is undeniably warmer and it is undeniably having an impact on the intensity of the ENSO cycle.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/features/PacificOceanSeaSurfaceHeights_prt.htm


Quote:
it never ends. you claim the sea is rising when an island SINKS. it all getrs a bit ludicrous in the end.


No, you just believe everything you read from people like Andrew Bolt. The guy who made the claim about the sinking island, whose only other claim to fame is as a failed water dowser, has been thoroughly discredited and shown to be a fraud (from a water dowser? Who woulda thunk it!  ::)  ). This is yet another example of how once a lie has been disseminated it becomes fact the denialosphere.

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/damning-evidence-of-fraud-by-nils-axel-morner/

Anymore denier talking points that you need me to shoot down?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by mozzaok on May 15th, 2011 at 5:22pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:23pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:46pm:
The biggest con that the Climate Change Denialists managed, was to attach their campaign of misinformation, and deceit, to the right leaning side of politics, where people take up the denialist position, just because they have always supported political views from that side of politics.

Facts do not change to suit people's political agendas, and it is very disconcerting to see people accepting the lies of the Denialist campaign, without question.
The rejection of proper scientific scholarship, in favour of political PR style spruiking, would be amusing, if it were not an issue with such huge ramifications for future generations, and the ones who are knowingly promoting known lies, should be held accountable.

The burden of proof has become such a misused term in this issue as to have become almost meaningless, when the same people who demand further proof from climate scientists, promote a ridiculous conspiracy theory that ALL the world's climate scientists are corrupt, and secretly colluding to perpetrate a massive global swindle.
So they create a no win situation where all the valid evidence placed in front of them, can be discounted as unreliable, because of their belief in a massive conspiracy, which is self evident to them, despite the total lack of credibility for such a preposterous belief.

So, when you have ruled out all the real experts in the world as being invalid, who does that leave you to gather your facts from?

Who, do the denialists believe??? (and if they answer that, we then need to know why?)


Id debate your position but we know what you do to people who oppose your beliefs. you ban them.

Typical left-wing behaviour.



Another lie from an unmitigated, and unrepentant liar.
Your reality must be a confusing place.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 5:34pm

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 5:22pm:
an unmitigated, and unrepentant liar.


Who keeps repeating lies even after they've been shown to be lies.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 15th, 2011 at 6:50pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:57am:
No, you're anti-science. You have decided that a vast chunk of scientific understanding can be ignored because it doesn't suit your ideological belief structure. You're just like a creationist.

It's even simpler than that. I just do not want to be on the same side as people like you. I just do not want whatever you guys are having. I think of this as being discerning.




Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 15th, 2011 at 6:51pm

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:02pm:
So basically Abbott lied and you now try desperately to change the topic, but as soon as you are offered a chance to defend Abbott, you suddenly get all shy on us?



WHat did Flannery say? And what did Abbott say that was a lie about what Flannery said?


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 15th, 2011 at 7:06pm

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 3:46pm:
The biggest con that the Climate Change Denialists managed, was to attach their campaign of misinformation, and deceit, to the right leaning side of politics, where people take up the denialist position, just because they have always supported political views from that side of politics.

Facts do not change to suit people's political agendas, and it is very disconcerting to see people accepting the lies of the Denialist campaign, without question.
The rejection of proper scientific scholarship, in favour of political PR style spruiking, would be amusing, if it were not an issue with such huge ramifications for future generations, and the ones who are knowingly promoting known lies, should be held accountable.

The burden of proof has become such a misused term in this issue as to have become almost meaningless, when the same people who demand further proof from climate scientists, promote a ridiculous conspiracy theory that ALL the world's climate scientists are corrupt, and secretly colluding to perpetrate a massive global swindle.
So they create a no win situation where all the valid evidence placed in front of them, can be discounted as unreliable, because of their belief in a massive conspiracy, which is self evident to them, despite the total lack of credibility for such a preposterous belief.

So, when you have ruled out all the real experts in the world as being invalid, who does that leave you to gather your facts from?

Who, do the denialists believe??? (and if they answer that, we then need to know why?)



There is a whole heap of stuff in the 'climate science/change' bag. Not accepting every single proposal and pronouncement by you or any other partisan is not 'denialism', Mozz. You are old enough to know that.

The heated rhetoric you and others employ is completely unscientific and wholly - yes, political. SO what you guys are agitating for is a wholesale acceptance of every stupid political idea you have or accepted because of partisan alliances.  And when people don't go along you come out with the usual pathetic, political froth and nonsense.

The Australian carbon tax proposal is of the very same mindless gesture politics. It is a completely pointless exercise - unless you aim to preen and prance in public. For that, it is an excellent measure. As far as the climate is concerned, or even global cooperation, it is a tiny fart in the wind.  I am actually amazed that anyone over 14 actually proposes or defends it. It's just that stupid.

To plant forests and make energy use efficient IS a far, far better measure if a country wants togo it alone. All that tax and reimburse and bureaucratise is the cloth-cap brid=gade's fetish about money (carbon tax is about money and government bean-counting). It is the lefty 'look-at-moi, I'm virtueous' sh!t.







Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 15th, 2011 at 7:15pm

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 6:51pm:

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:02pm:
So basically Abbott lied and you now try desperately to change the topic, but as soon as you are offered a chance to defend Abbott, you suddenly get all shy on us?



WHat did Flannery say? And what did Abbott say that was a lie about what Flannery said?


From the opening post in this thread:


freediver wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:07pm:
If the coalition keeps stumbling on such basic mathematical and logical concepts, how can they be expected to grasp the science and the economics of the issue?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#should-tony-abbott-apologise-to-tim-flannery


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 15th, 2011 at 7:19pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:38pm:
you fail to understand the credibility of claiming ALL weather events as evidence of CC. the recent rought in australia was not unprecedented. nor was the floods. but you want to claim both.


I'm not talking about weather events,


Bullsh!t, with respect.

When there is a hurricane, a flood, a bushfire, a drought - all weather events - the 'do something about the climate' brigade are very, very happy to cite these events as proof of climate change caused by man - and woman (we want to be inclusive, don't we.).



Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Equitist on May 15th, 2011 at 7:45pm



I dunno why lefties bother debating with right whingers, since most right whingers suffer from a toxic mixture of blinkered doGmatism and comprehension deficits...


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 7:49pm

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:19pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:38pm:
you fail to understand the credibility of claiming ALL weather events as evidence of CC. the recent rought in australia was not unprecedented. nor was the floods. but you want to claim both.


I'm not talking about weather events,


Bullsh!t, with respect.

When there is a hurricane, a flood, a bushfire, a drought - all weather events - the 'do something about the climate' brigade are very, very happy to cite these events as proof of climate change caused by man - and woman (we want to be inclusive, don't we.).


Examples? Because everything I read doesn't claim a weather event is proof of anything. But I DO hear comments along the line of 'these events are likely to become more frequent and more intense as the climate warms'. Which isn't controversial at all, it is well established fact. But, then again, I get MY information from the science press, not the mainstream media. Maybe that's the difference here?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 7:53pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:38pm:
you fail to understand the credibility of claiming ALL weather events as evidence of CC. the recent rought in australia was not unprecedented. nor was the floods. but you want to claim both.


I'm not talking about weather events, I'm talking about the impact on the systems that drive the weather events. The Pacific Ocean is undeniably warmer and it is undeniably having an impact on the intensity of the ENSO cycle.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/features/PacificOceanSeaSurfaceHeights_prt.htm


Quote:
it never ends. you claim the sea is rising when an island SINKS. it all getrs a bit ludicrous in the end.


No, you just believe everything you read from people like Andrew Bolt. The guy who made the claim about the sinking island, whose only other claim to fame is as a failed water dowser, has been thoroughly discredited and shown to be a fraud (from a water dowser? Who woulda thunk it!  ::)  ). This is yet another example of how once a lie has been disseminated it becomes fact the denialosphere.

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/damning-evidence-of-fraud-by-nils-axel-morner/

Anymore denier talking points that you need me to shoot down?

The water in Jurien Bay was undeniably warm this year in the evenings...!

UNDENIABLY!

DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT?

IF IT WEREN'T FOR THAT STING RAY THING I WOULD HAVE JUMPED IN BUT, I WAS ALMOST THINKING IT WAS TOO HOT EVEN.

THE CURRENTS ARE WEIRD FOR SURE BUT PEOPLE DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHY...

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 7:55pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:49pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:19pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:38pm:
you fail to understand the credibility of claiming ALL weather events as evidence of CC. the recent rought in australia was not unprecedented. nor was the floods. but you want to claim both.


I'm not talking about weather events,


Bullsh!t, with respect.

When there is a hurricane, a flood, a bushfire, a drought - all weather events - the 'do something about the climate' brigade are very, very happy to cite these events as proof of climate change caused by man - and woman (we want to be inclusive, don't we.).


Examples? Because everything I read doesn't claim a weather event is proof of anything. But I DO hear comments along the line of 'these events are likely to become more frequent and more intense as the climate warms'. Which isn't controversial at all, it is well established fact. But, then again, I get MY information from the science press, not the mainstream media. Maybe that's the difference here?

MUDDYING THE WATER IS SORENS ONLY TRICK!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 7:58pm

Equitist wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:45pm:
I dunno why lefties bother debating with right whingers, since most right whingers suffer from a toxic mixture of blinkered doGmatism and comprehension deficits...

THEY'RE NOT ALL GOD BOTHERERS: THERE'S A FAIR FEW DRUG ADDICTS IN THE BORN TO RULE CLASS!


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 8:01pm

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 6:50pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:57am:
No, you're anti-science. You have decided that a vast chunk of scientific understanding can be ignored because it doesn't suit your ideological belief structure. You're just like a creationist.

It's even simpler than that. I just do not want to be on the same side as people like you. I just do not want whatever you guys are having. I think of this as being discerning.

WASN'T TED BUNDY A REPUBLICAN?????

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 8:02pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 5:34pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 5:22pm:
an unmitigated, and unrepentant liar.


Who keeps repeating lies even after they've been shown to be lies.

YES, BUT, THAT IS JUST THE METH TALKING.....  :D ;) ;D ;D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 8:05pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:13pm:
they have been predicting ice-free summers for the past 3 years and since that has never happened how do you claim it is FASTER than predicted?


Source or it didn't happen. I'm tired of correcting your unsupported statements.

And this is what I mean, the rate of decline accelerating faster and deeper than the worst case scenario projected by climate models. I've made this point to you before, climate models are only wrong in the sense that they tend to conservatively underestimate the impact of AGW.




Quote:
Polar Ice Sheets Melting Faster Than Predicted

The thick glaciers covering Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than scientists expected

By Lauren Morello and ClimateWire  | March 9, 2011 | 11

Ice loss from the massive ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating, according to a new study.

If the trend continues, ice sheets could become the dominant contributor to sea level rise sooner than scientists had predicted, concludes the research, which will be published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"The traditional view of the loss of land ice on Earth has been that mountain glaciers and ice caps are the dominant contributors, and ice sheets are following behind," said study co-author Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine. "In this study, we are showing that ice sheets, mountain glaciers and ice caps are neck-and-neck."

But that could soon change, Rignot said, because the rate at which ice sheets are losing mass is increasing three times faster than the rate of ice loss from mountain glaciers and ice caps.

"I don't think we expected ice sheets to run neck-and-neck with mountain glaciers, which basically sit in a warmer climate, this soon," he said. "At the same time, the mass loss on the ice sheet is not very large compared to how much mass they store."

Rignot was part of a research team that also included scientists from Utrecht University in the Netherlands and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

The researchers based their analysis on a comparison of two different methods to measure ice loss.

Continued...

'Source or it didn't happen."

THIS WILL FRY HIS BRAIN IF YOU KEEP IT UP.........  ;) ;)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 8:08pm

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:13pm:
they have been predicting ice-free summers for the past 3 years and since that has never happened how do you claim it is FASTER than predicted?


Source or it didn't happen. I'm tired of correcting your unsupported statements.

And this is what I mean, the rate of decline accelerating faster and deeper than the worst case scenario projected by climate models. I've made this point to you before, climate models are only wrong in the sense that they tend to conservatively underestimate the impact of AGW.




Quote:
Polar Ice Sheets Melting Faster Than Predicted

The thick glaciers covering Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than scientists expected

By Lauren Morello and ClimateWire  | March 9, 2011 | 11

Ice loss from the massive ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating, according to a new study.

If the trend continues, ice sheets could become the dominant contributor to sea level rise sooner than scientists had predicted, concludes the research, which will be published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"The traditional view of the loss of land ice on Earth has been that mountain glaciers and ice caps are the dominant contributors, and ice sheets are following behind," said study co-author Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine. "In this study, we are showing that ice sheets, mountain glaciers and ice caps are neck-and-neck."

But that could soon change, Rignot said, because the rate at which ice sheets are losing mass is increasing three times faster than the rate of ice loss from mountain glaciers and ice caps.

"I don't think we expected ice sheets to run neck-and-neck with mountain glaciers, which basically sit in a warmer climate, this soon," he said. "At the same time, the mass loss on the ice sheet is not very large compared to how much mass they store."

Rignot was part of a research team that also included scientists from Utrecht University in the Netherlands and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

The researchers based their analysis on a comparison of two different methods to measure ice loss.

Continued...




INTERESTING  :o :o

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by adelcrow on May 15th, 2011 at 8:17pm
Info on carbon pollution effecting the worlds climate is only relevant if it is released by Andrew Bolt, Queenie Jones or Leaping Lord Budgie   ;D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 15th, 2011 at 8:23pm

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:19pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:38pm:
you fail to understand the credibility of claiming ALL weather events as evidence of CC. the recent rought in australia was not unprecedented. nor was the floods. but you want to claim both.


I'm not talking about weather events,


Bullsh!t, with respect.

When there is a hurricane, a flood, a bushfire, a drought - all weather events - the 'do something about the climate' brigade are very, very happy to cite these events as proof of climate change caused by man - and woman (we want to be inclusive, don't we.).



True, the Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery is a perfect example of the scaremongering due to weather events or lack thereof.
And Flannery has been proved wrong on many many occassions.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 15th, 2011 at 8:27pm

Equitist wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:45pm:
I dunno why lefties bother debating with right whingers, since most right whingers suffer from a toxic mixture of blinkered doGmatism and comprehension deficits...



An excellent example of what I am talking about - you would have to be a total smacking moron to side with this sort of mentality. Who wants to side with the mongs??





Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 15th, 2011 at 8:30pm

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:27pm:

Equitist wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:45pm:
I dunno why lefties bother debating with right whingers, since most right whingers suffer from a toxic mixture of blinkered doGmatism and comprehension deficits...



An excellent example of what I am talking about - you would have to be a total smacking moron to side with this sort of mentality. Who wants to side with the mongs??




Lefties are always seeking justification for their insanity, and seek comfort from other lefties insane views.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by adelcrow on May 15th, 2011 at 8:31pm
Yep..Bolt and Jones have far superior scientific qualifications than Flannery.
You will also find that Flannery would happily admit to be wrong about plenty of things  in his life..just like every other human on the planet.
But when it comes to the damage carbon pollution is doing to our planet..the only ones in the negative camp are shock jocks, insane inbred british lords, and opposition pollies  ;D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 8:34pm

creep wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:27pm:

Equitist wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:45pm:
I dunno why lefties bother debating with right whingers, since most right whingers suffer from a toxic mixture of blinkered doGmatism and comprehension deficits...



An excellent example of what I am talking about - you would have to be a total smacking moron to side with this sort of mentality. Who wants to side with the mongs??




Lefties are always seeking justification for their insanity, and seek comfort from other lefties insane views.

WHICH IS WHY TONY ABBOTT CAN'T DEFEND HIMSELF OVER HIS PRE-LIBERAL-PARTY-LEADERSHIP-VIEW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS ABSOLUTE CRAP!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 8:35pm

adelcrow wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:31pm:
Yep..Bolt and Jones have far superior scientific qualifications than Flannery.
You will also find that Flannery would happily admit to be wrong about plenty of things  in his life..just like every other human on the planet.
But when it comes to the damage carbon pollution is doing to our planet..the only ones in the negative camp are shock jocks, insane inbred british lords, and opposition pollies  ;D

...WHEN THEY ARE IN OPPOSITION THAT IS!!!  ::)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 15th, 2011 at 8:35pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

creep wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:27pm:

Equitist wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:45pm:
I dunno why lefties bother debating with right whingers, since most right whingers suffer from a toxic mixture of blinkered doGmatism and comprehension deficits...



An excellent example of what I am talking about - you would have to be a total smacking moron to side with this sort of mentality. Who wants to side with the mongs??




Lefties are always seeking justification for their insanity, and seek comfort from other lefties insane views.

WHICH IS WHY TONY ABBOTT CAN'T DEFEND HIMSELF OVER HIS PRE-LIBERAL-PARTY-LEADERSHIP-VIEW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS ABSOLUTE CRAP!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D




But Climate Change is absolute crap.
No need to defend that comment at all.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by mozzaok on May 15th, 2011 at 8:48pm
Great concept you have invented there Soren.
Obviously the denial of Global Warming has all the intelligent, and considered opinions on it's side, no loony lords, or conspiracy nuts pushing that cause with whom you would not want your superior intellect attached?

We have covered the ground on the difference between skepticism, and denialism, and no skeptic worth his salt would ever buy the unmitigated lies promoted by denialists.

That is the difference between people who actually listen to the expert scientific opinion, and those who repeat discredited lies from bloggers and loonies, the scientific opinion is reviewed and validated, by others with the scientific knowledge to make an informed decision on what they read, and if and when errors are found, they are corrected.
On the other side, the denialist side, they make unfounded statements, which are proven to be totally false, and then they ignore the evidence which discredits them, and just keep repeating their lies.

It is pretty clear cut, the science is not perfect, but it is honest, while the denialist campaign is totally lacking in any such credibility, because they most definitely are not skeptics, rather they are believers in a contrarian cause, and the only measure of worth they attach importance to is not the truth of their claims, but whether or not it suits their argument, so obviously, a lie will always serve them better than truth, or facts, because a lie can be moulded to suit your argument as you wish it to.

The denialists who choose to ignore the fact that what they believe is so totally founded on utterly discredited lies, absolutely proves to me that they have no true skeptical enquiry, at heart, but rather a desire to further a cause that they have attached themselves to, most usually because of their political allegiances.

Skeptics deserve, and receive my respect, denialist deserve, and receive nothing but contempt, for the bloody minded ignorance they promote so selfishly, and stupidly.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 15th, 2011 at 8:51pm

adelcrow wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:31pm:
Yep..Bolt and Jones have far superior scientific qualifications than Flannery.
You will also find that Flannery would happily admit to be wrong about plenty of things  in his life..just like every other human on the planet.
But when it comes to the damage carbon pollution is doing to our planet..the only ones in the negative camp are shock jocks, insane inbred british lords, and opposition pollies  ;D



If a scientist like Flannery, employed to communicate the climate change message, can't express himself without ambiguity, he fails both as a scientist and as a communicator. He deserves the harshest criticism and the most pitiless ridicule.
He is a waste of money, of attention, of scientific prestige.




Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 8:53pm

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:48pm:
Great concept you have invented there Soren.
Obviously the denial of Global Warming has all the intelligent, and considered opinions on it's side, no loony lords, or conspiracy nuts pushing that cause with whom you would not want your superior intellect attached?

We have covered the ground on the difference between skepticism, and denialism, and no skeptic worth his salt would ever buy the unmitigated lies promoted by denialists.

That is the difference between people who actually listen to the expert scientific opinion, and those who repeat discredited lies from bloggers and loonies, the scientific opinion is reviewed and validated, by others with the scientific knowledge to make an informed decision on what they read, and if and when errors are found, they are corrected.
On the other side, the denialist side, they make unfounded statements, which are proven to be totally false, and then they ignore the evidence which discredits them, and just keep repeating their lies.

It is pretty clear cut, the science is not perfect, but it is honest, while the denialist campaign is totally lacking in any such credibility, because they most definitely are not skeptics, rather they are believers in a contrarian cause, and the only measure of worth they attach importance to is not the truth of their claims, but whether or not it suits their argument, so obviously, a lie will always serve them better than truth, or facts, because a lie can be moulded to suit your argument as you wish it to.

The denialists who choose to ignore the fact that what they believe is so totally founded on utterly discredited lies, absolutely proves to me that they have no true skeptical enquiry, at heart, but rather a desire to further a cause that they have attached themselves to, most usually because of their political allegiances.

Skeptics deserve, and receive my respect, denialist deserve, and receive nothing but contempt, for the bloody minded ignorance they promote so selfishly, and stupidly.

ANOTHER WAY TO PUT THIS IS THAT PROPAGANDA IS NECESSARILY SCANT ON DETAILS!!!

AN INFORMATION WAR NECESSITATES A SPEEDY ATTACK(NOTHING BEATS SPEED BUT SPEED), WHICH NECESSITATES SCANT DETAILS FROM THE SIDE THAT DECLARES THE WAR!!!

;) 8-) 8-)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 15th, 2011 at 8:55pm

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:48pm:
Skeptics deserve, and receive my respect, denialist deserve, and receive nothing but contempt,



Lovely.

Tell us how you make the distinction.

Wrings hands while shuffling feet: sceptic. Looks you in the eye and says you are talking agit-prop crap: denialist.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 8:55pm

creep wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:35pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

creep wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:27pm:

Equitist wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:45pm:
I dunno why lefties bother debating with right whingers, since most right whingers suffer from a toxic mixture of blinkered doGmatism and comprehension deficits...



An excellent example of what I am talking about - you would have to be a total smacking moron to side with this sort of mentality. Who wants to side with the mongs??




Lefties are always seeking justification for their insanity, and seek comfort from other lefties insane views.

WHICH IS WHY TONY ABBOTT CAN'T DEFEND HIMSELF OVER HIS PRE-LIBERAL-PARTY-LEADERSHIP-VIEW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS ABSOLUTE CRAP!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D




But Climate Change is absolute crap.
No need to defend that comment at all.

NOT IF YOU'RE NOT TONY ABBOTT, HEY EINSTEIN!??!  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

"...HELLO, ANYBODY HOME ???????????????????????????????"  ::)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 8:57pm

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:55pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:48pm:
Skeptics deserve, and receive my respect, denialist deserve, and receive nothing but contempt,



Lovely.

Tell us how you make the distinction.

Wrings hands while shuffling feet: sceptic. Looks you in the eye and says you are talking agit-prop crap: denialist.

DENIALISTS HAVE AN ATTITUDE FOR THEY ARE AT WAR!

NEXT!  :D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 15th, 2011 at 9:01pm
Gaaaawd! Not you??

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 9:05pm

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 9:01pm:
Gaaaawd! Not you??

WAR MONGERS GET A HARD TIME IN THIS LIFE..... GET USED TO IT!  :D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by mozzaok on May 15th, 2011 at 9:20pm

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:55pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:48pm:
Skeptics deserve, and receive my respect, denialist deserve, and receive nothing but contempt,



Lovely.

Tell us how you make the distinction.

Wrings hands while shuffling feet: sceptic. Looks you in the eye and says you are talking agit-prop crap: denialist.



It is easy, a skeptic makes a critical analysis of the evidence.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 15th, 2011 at 9:22pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 9:05pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 9:01pm:
Gaaaawd! Not you??

WAR MONGERS GET A HARD TIME IN THIS LIFE..... GET USED TO IT!  :D



"Get used to the having te sh!t annoyed out of you" - said the laxative to the sensible man.

The times we live in.




Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 9:40pm

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 9:22pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 9:05pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 9:01pm:
Gaaaawd! Not you??

WAR MONGERS GET A HARD TIME IN THIS LIFE..... GET USED TO IT!  :D



"Get used to the having te sh!t annoyed out of you" - said the laxative to the sensible man.

The times we live in.

WE ALL LOVE OUR FRUITLOOPS MATE... DON'T EVER LEAVE WILL YA MATE!!??!!  ;) 8-) 8-)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 15th, 2011 at 9:58pm
I'd leave only to annoy the sh!t out of you, mate. Vengence will be mine!!

:-*

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 15th, 2011 at 10:26pm

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 9:58pm:
I'd leave only to annoy the sh!t out of you, mate. Vengence will be mine!!

:-*

Still hiding that nasty attitude behind American made Nuclear machoism ay?!!?

 :D :D :D :D ;)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 15th, 2011 at 11:35pm

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:55pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:48pm:
Skeptics deserve, and receive my respect, denialist deserve, and receive nothing but contempt,



Lovely.

Tell us how you make the distinction.

Wrings hands while shuffling feet: sceptic. Looks you in the eye and says you are talking agit-prop crap: denialist.



No. A sceptic accepts the weight of the evidence until some other line of evidence contradicts it. Feel free to offer some contradictory evidence, until then STFU or accept the fact that you're a denier.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by it_is_the_light on May 16th, 2011 at 9:11am
this planet is traversing our sun

solar maximum solar minimum 365 days 1 year

[1 cycle]

further

the solar system is traversing the central sun alcione 26,000 years

[1 cycle]

some 'scientists' find a way to manipulate data proven on record

leaked emails mistruths about incorrect and manipulated data toward

the assertion that man makes climate change?

so they can make money off of a natural cyclical position of being

regarding the earths point in linear time in the 3rd dimension

re: pyhsical universe

the only constant is change

the earth will never stay the same

it is always evolving

the powers that were refuse to release the free energy and tax

to the eyeballs the combustion engine and the fuels that power this

your time is overwith

you have had you chances and your power is gone

all is in accordance with the divine plan

all the data mearly reflects a natural change regarding temperatures

and solar maxima/minima

you may believe as you do so wish

all satanic freemasonics will be departing very soon...trust you've had

fun,

you will be going unto that which you have invoked

you may take this forgiveness with you on your travels

namaste

-:)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by it_is_the_light on May 16th, 2011 at 9:18am
this mother earth has always been evolving

should we have been paying to pollute for millenia?

further

why pay any tax to these satanic despots?

when you pay a carbon tax this allows big business to

pay to pollute..when you allow this they pollute even moreso and

give fiat useless no gold standard toilet paper with no real value

to do so...

further yet still

ALL NUCLEAR WASTE will be comming to OZ

beacuse we have a carbon tax they will pay the money

[useless fiat paper money no gold standard]

yes that right

they will pay the money and australia will be obligated to

bury this toxic and hazardous nuclear and further waste deep

into gandwannaland soiling the artesian basin and fouling the

spring waters

you satanics are on notice

this will be prevented from happening

all is in accordance with the divine plan

for i am here to validate that we are here yes

human angels

and we do not allow such non sense to happen on our watch

does this comfort you beloveds?

the disinformationalistical conspiracy theoretique' snake oil

salesmen like astro will be dismissed very soon..

you will go unto that which you do invoke dear one

with forgiveness yes

as the meek inherite this earth

happy trails

namaste

-:)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 16th, 2011 at 9:57am

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:35pm:
until then STFU or accept the fact that you're a denier.



The hoof is showing.

Lefties want conservatives to shut up, conservatives want lefties to keep talking.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by progressiveslol on May 16th, 2011 at 10:08am

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 11:35pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:55pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:48pm:
Skeptics deserve, and receive my respect, denialist deserve, and receive nothing but contempt,



Lovely.

Tell us how you make the distinction.

Wrings hands while shuffling feet: sceptic. Looks you in the eye and says you are talking agit-prop crap: denialist.



No. A sceptic accepts the weight of the evidence until some other line of evidence contradicts it. Feel free to offer some contradictory evidence, until then STFU or accept the fact that you're a denier.

Is a person who believes that scientists have fudged figures, made their peer-review system look shonky and cant trust scientists until they prove themselves :-

a skeptic
a denier

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 16th, 2011 at 10:19am

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 9:20pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:55pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:48pm:
Skeptics deserve, and receive my respect, denialist deserve, and receive nothing but contempt,



Lovely.

Tell us how you make the distinction.

Wrings hands while shuffling feet: sceptic. Looks you in the eye and says you are talking agit-prop crap: denialist.



It is easy, a skeptic makes a critical analysis of the evidence.



Excellent. Can you give us one scientific publication that that provided the evidence that convinced you personally? No, you can't. You rely on popularisers like most of the rest of us.




Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 16th, 2011 at 11:50am

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 9:20pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:55pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:48pm:
Skeptics deserve, and receive my respect, denialist deserve, and receive nothing but contempt,



Lovely.

Tell us how you make the distinction.

Wrings hands while shuffling feet: sceptic. Looks you in the eye and says you are talking agit-prop crap: denialist.



It is easy, a skeptic makes a critical analysis of the evidence.


And they are particularly critical when the 'evidence' has been extrapolated based initially on a guess. 8-)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 16th, 2011 at 11:53am

adelcrow wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
Info on carbon pollution effecting the worlds climate is only relevant if it is released by Andrew Bolt, Queenie Jones or Leaping Lord Budgie   ;D


I don't think Andrew Bolt releases info on carbon dioxide pollution.
He does question however the drivel put out by others though that do put out info.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 16th, 2011 at 11:56am

adelcrow wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:31pm:
Yep..Bolt and Jones have far superior scientific qualifications than Flannery.
You will also find that Flannery would happily admit to be wrong about plenty of things  in his life..just like every other human on the planet.
But when it comes to the damage carbon pollution is doing to our planet..the only ones in the negative camp are shock jocks, insane inbred british lords, and opposition pollies  ;D


His quals aren't the problem
It's the simple fact that not one of his doom and gloom predictions has happened.
Perhaps he should try reading tea leaves instead.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 16th, 2011 at 12:00pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:08pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:13pm:
they have been predicting ice-free summers for the past 3 years and since that has never happened how do you claim it is FASTER than predicted?


Source or it didn't happen. I'm tired of correcting your unsupported statements.

And this is what I mean, the rate of decline accelerating faster and deeper than the worst case scenario projected by climate models. I've made this point to you before, climate models are only wrong in the sense that they tend to conservatively underestimate the impact of AGW.




Quote:
Polar Ice Sheets Melting Faster Than Predicted

The thick glaciers covering Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than scientists expected

By Lauren Morello and ClimateWire  | March 9, 2011 | 11

Ice loss from the massive ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating, according to a new study.

If the trend continues, ice sheets could become the dominant contributor to sea level rise sooner than scientists had predicted, concludes the research, which will be published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"The traditional view of the loss of land ice on Earth has been that mountain glaciers and ice caps are the dominant contributors, and ice sheets are following behind," said study co-author Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine. "In this study, we are showing that ice sheets, mountain glaciers and ice caps are neck-and-neck."

But that could soon change, Rignot said, because the rate at which ice sheets are losing mass is increasing three times faster than the rate of ice loss from mountain glaciers and ice caps.

"I don't think we expected ice sheets to run neck-and-neck with mountain glaciers, which basically sit in a warmer climate, this soon," he said. "At the same time, the mass loss on the ice sheet is not very large compared to how much mass they store."

Rignot was part of a research team that also included scientists from Utrecht University in the Netherlands and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

The researchers based their analysis on a comparison of two different methods to measure ice loss.

Continued...




INTERESTING  :o :o


Back under your bed horse.
The sky's falling because someones extrapolated figures don't look good.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 16th, 2011 at 12:58pm

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:48pm:
We have covered the ground on the difference between skepticism, and denialism, and no skeptic worth his salt would ever buy the unmitigated lies promoted by denialists.

That is the difference between people who actually listen to the expert scientific opinion, and those who repeat discredited lies from bloggers and loonies, the scientific opinion is reviewed and validated, by others with the scientific knowledge to make an informed decision on what they read, and if and when errors are found, they are corrected.



Very well, here is expert scientific evidence:

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf


Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

To paraphrase Judith from The Life of Brian, "It's not happening, Reg! Something's actually not happening, Reg! Can't you understand?!"


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 16th, 2011 at 2:19pm

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 12:58pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:48pm:
We have covered the ground on the difference between skepticism, and denialism, and no skeptic worth his salt would ever buy the unmitigated lies promoted by denialists.

That is the difference between people who actually listen to the expert scientific opinion, and those who repeat discredited lies from bloggers and loonies, the scientific opinion is reviewed and validated, by others with the scientific knowledge to make an informed decision on what they read, and if and when errors are found, they are corrected.



Very well, here is expert scientific evidence:

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf


Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

To paraphrase Judith from The Life of Brian, "It's not happening, Reg! Something's actually not happening, Reg! Can't you understand?!"


And of course Al Gore recently bought his new $8.9 Million luxury Villa right on the beach in California, thanks to the proceeds of his sci fi novel "An inconvenient truth".
Now, would a man who believed the tripe he wrote actually spend money like that on any beach anywhere.
I think not.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 16th, 2011 at 3:42pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 12:00pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:08pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:13pm:
they have been predicting ice-free summers for the past 3 years and since that has never happened how do you claim it is FASTER than predicted?


Source or it didn't happen. I'm tired of correcting your unsupported statements.

And this is what I mean, the rate of decline accelerating faster and deeper than the worst case scenario projected by climate models. I've made this point to you before, climate models are only wrong in the sense that they tend to conservatively underestimate the impact of AGW.




Quote:
Polar Ice Sheets Melting Faster Than Predicted

The thick glaciers covering Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than scientists expected

By Lauren Morello and ClimateWire  | March 9, 2011 | 11

Ice loss from the massive ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating, according to a new study.

If the trend continues, ice sheets could become the dominant contributor to sea level rise sooner than scientists had predicted, concludes the research, which will be published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"The traditional view of the loss of land ice on Earth has been that mountain glaciers and ice caps are the dominant contributors, and ice sheets are following behind," said study co-author Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine. "In this study, we are showing that ice sheets, mountain glaciers and ice caps are neck-and-neck."

But that could soon change, Rignot said, because the rate at which ice sheets are losing mass is increasing three times faster than the rate of ice loss from mountain glaciers and ice caps.

"I don't think we expected ice sheets to run neck-and-neck with mountain glaciers, which basically sit in a warmer climate, this soon," he said. "At the same time, the mass loss on the ice sheet is not very large compared to how much mass they store."

Rignot was part of a research team that also included scientists from Utrecht University in the Netherlands and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

The researchers based their analysis on a comparison of two different methods to measure ice loss.

Continued...




INTERESTING  :o :o


Back under your bed horse.
The sky's falling because someones extrapolated figures don't look good.

IN PERTH THEY'RE EXTRAPOLATING FIGURES TO PREDICT THERE WILL BE A WATER SHORTAGE by 2020 if they don't build a SECOND DESAL PLANT.....

 :D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 16th, 2011 at 6:46pm

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:19pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:38pm:
you fail to understand the credibility of claiming ALL weather events as evidence of CC. the recent rought in australia was not unprecedented. nor was the floods. but you want to claim both.


I'm not talking about weather events,


Bullsh!t, with respect.

When there is a hurricane, a flood, a bushfire, a drought - all weather events - the 'do something about the climate' brigade are very, very happy to cite these events as proof of climate change caused by man - and woman (we want to be inclusive, don't we.).


So Soren are you saying that you agree with the mainstream climate change theory and only disagree with these people?

Do you agree that Abbott lied about what Flannery said?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Flying Binghi on May 16th, 2011 at 8:48pm

Quote:

...sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet...
 


Ah, yes. That explains the 35 metre house boat Gore bought.. :-?

Just in case of sudden sea level raise I'm sure Gore keeps the Limo's running at his mansion so he can be urgently flown by his personal jet to his floating palace.. ;D

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gore-hits-the-waves-with-a-massive-new-houseboat/






.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 16th, 2011 at 8:53pm

freediver wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 6:46pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:19pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:38pm:
you fail to understand the credibility of claiming ALL weather events as evidence of CC. the recent rought in australia was not unprecedented. nor was the floods. but you want to claim both.


I'm not talking about weather events,


Bullsh!t, with respect.

When there is a hurricane, a flood, a bushfire, a drought - all weather events - the 'do something about the climate' brigade are very, very happy to cite these events as proof of climate change caused by man - and woman (we want to be inclusive, don't we.).



Do you agree that Abbott lied about what Flannery said?


No.

(we've done this already, FD, don't be like a goldfish; for them it's a brand new world at every turn of the aquarium.)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 16th, 2011 at 9:26pm

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 12:58pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:48pm:
We have covered the ground on the difference between skepticism, and denialism, and no skeptic worth his salt would ever buy the unmitigated lies promoted by denialists.

That is the difference between people who actually listen to the expert scientific opinion, and those who repeat discredited lies from bloggers and loonies, the scientific opinion is reviewed and validated, by others with the scientific knowledge to make an informed decision on what they read, and if and when errors are found, they are corrected.



Very well, here is expert scientific evidence:

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf


Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

To paraphrase Judith from The Life of Brian, "It's not happening, Reg! Something's actually not happening, Reg! Can't you understand?!"


Expert scientific evidence?  :o That's a denialist blog and an op-ed written by a known reactionary hack, you moron, not expert scientific evidence.

See, this is what makes deniers such a joke. On one hand that are automatically 'sceptical' of mainstream scientists, the people who have dedicated their lives understanding their field of expertise and have published and been cited in thousands of publications, but are willing to simply accept the the word, without question, of any half arsed crank with a PhD that claims to question AGW. This very, very selective 'scepticism is what most makes a mockery of deniers co-opting the title of 'sceptic'.

Nils-Morner, aside for promoting such science as WATER DOWSING, has been completely disowned by INQUA, his ONLY source of credibility who completely refute his claims he has made under their name. The man is a fraud and a disgrace.

http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33225_Kook_Lies_About_Lies

http://www.desmogblog.com/nils-axel-morner

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 16th, 2011 at 9:31pm

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 10:19am:
Excellent. Can you give us one scientific publication that that provided the evidence that convinced you personally? No, you can't. You rely on popularisers like most of the rest of us.


I sure can.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 16th, 2011 at 9:36pm

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 8:53pm:

freediver wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 6:46pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:19pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:38pm:
you fail to understand the credibility of claiming ALL weather events as evidence of CC. the recent rought in australia was not unprecedented. nor was the floods. but you want to claim both.


I'm not talking about weather events,


Bullsh!t, with respect.

When there is a hurricane, a flood, a bushfire, a drought - all weather events - the 'do something about the climate' brigade are very, very happy to cite these events as proof of climate change caused by man - and woman (we want to be inclusive, don't we.).



Do you agree that Abbott lied about what Flannery said?


No.

(we've done this already, FD, don't be like a goldfish; for them it's a brand new world at every turn of the aquarium.)


You keep getting distracted before you are able to comment on it Soren. Remember the picture I drew for you?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 16th, 2011 at 9:40pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 11:56am:

adelcrow wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:31pm:
Yep..Bolt and Jones have far superior scientific qualifications than Flannery.
You will also find that Flannery would happily admit to be wrong about plenty of things  in his life..just like every other human on the planet.
But when it comes to the damage carbon pollution is doing to our planet..the only ones in the negative camp are shock jocks, insane inbred british lords, and opposition pollies  ;D


His quals aren't the problem
It's the simple fact that not one of his doom and gloom predictions has happened.
Perhaps he should try reading tea leaves instead.


You keep repeating the lie even though you can't support it. Other than the lies Andrew Bolt writes, I doubt you've ever even read a anything Flannery has every written. And you keep repeating the lie even after it's been shown to be a lie. You people sure do like to revel in your pig headed ignorance, don't you?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 16th, 2011 at 9:54pm

freediver wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 9:36pm:

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 8:53pm:

freediver wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 6:46pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:19pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:38pm:
you fail to understand the credibility of claiming ALL weather events as evidence of CC. the recent rought in australia was not unprecedented. nor was the floods. but you want to claim both.


I'm not talking about weather events,


Bullsh!t, with respect.

When there is a hurricane, a flood, a bushfire, a drought - all weather events - the 'do something about the climate' brigade are very, very happy to cite these events as proof of climate change caused by man - and woman (we want to be inclusive, don't we.).



Do you agree that Abbott lied about what Flannery said?


No.

(we've done this already, FD, don't be like a goldfish; for them it's a brand new world at every turn of the aquarium.)


You keep getting distracted before you are able to comment on it Soren. Remember the picture I drew for you?



No. Do you?


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 16th, 2011 at 10:05pm

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 9:54pm:
No. Do you?


Once again, the sheer vacuousness of the denier mentality is exposed for all to see. You people unquestioningly swallow anything your are told that supports your biases. It's pathetic really.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 16th, 2011 at 10:18pm

astro_surf wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 9:31pm:

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 10:19am:
Excellent. Can you give us one scientific publication that that provided the evidence that convinced you personally? No, you can't. You rely on popularisers like most of the rest of us.


I sure can.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html



Would that be the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that issued such statements about their bogus disappearing glaciers:

“the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."


Is that IPCC which is headed by one Rajenda Pachauri, who is now the boss of the discredited scientist who made that bogus claim about glaciers? The very same.

Pachauri, internationally renowned author of Return to Almora?  Oh yes.
"The book mingles lectures on climate change with descriptions of Sanjay’s sexual encounters, including frequent references to “voluptuous breasts”."

The Pachauri with the same comb-over as Lord Whatshisname? Indeed.




Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 16th, 2011 at 10:27pm

astro_surf wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 10:05pm:
Once again, the sheer vacuousness of the denier mentality is exposed for all to see. You people unquestioningly swallow anything your are told that supports your biases. It's pathetic really.


Yes it really is quite bizarre how the warmists will believe anything at all, they deny logic and facts even when their mentor Flannery has been exposed as a scarmongering alarmist. No wonder they are gullible gerties.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 16th, 2011 at 10:28pm

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 10:18pm:
Would that be the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that issued such statements about their bogus disappearing glaciers:

“the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."


Yes. The very same IPCC. The multidisciplinary committee made up of thousands of contributors and reviewers, coordinating a massive scientific undertaking comprising of four volumes and thousands of pages, and the ONLY mistakes it made were two minor errors in the non-peer reviewed part of the impact statement. Anyone who has ever had any idea of what committees are like would rightly hail that as a remarkable achievement:


Quote:
Errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)

As far as we’re aware, so far only one–or at most two–legitimate errors have been found in the AR4:

Himalayan glaciers: In a regional chapter on Asia in Volume 2, written by authors from the region, it was erroneously stated that 80% of Himalayan glacier area would very likely be gone by 2035. This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts (such as our colleague Georg Kaser from Austria, who first discovered the Himalaya error in the WG2 report).  There are also several pages on future glacier decline in Chapter 10 (“Global Climate Projections”), where the proper projections are used e.g. to estimate future sea level rise. So the problem here is not that the IPCC’s glacier experts made an incorrect prediction. The problem is that a WG2 chapter, instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place. Fixing this error involves deleting two sentences on page 493 of the WG2 report.

Sea level in the Netherlands: The WG2 report states that “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”. This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has now published a correction stating that the sentence should have read “55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding”. It surely will go down as one of the more ironic episodes in its history when the Dutch parliament last Monday derided the IPCC, in a heated debate, for printing information provided by … the Dutch government. In addition, the IPCC notes that there are several definitions of the area below sea level. The Dutch Ministry of Transport uses the figure 60% (below high water level during storms), while others use 30% (below mean sea level). Needless to say, the actual number mentioned in the report has no bearing on any IPCC conclusions and has nothing to do with climate science, and it is questionable whether it should even be counted as an IPCC error.


And I see you've taken the default denier position of doing the Gish Gallop and not responding when you points are challenged, rather jumping onto the next denier talking point without missing a beat. You people are intellectual derelicts.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Equitist on May 16th, 2011 at 10:47pm


Speaking of gullible Gerties...

How is it that those who refuse to accept the science of climate change also follow the draconian, divisive and hateful extremist rants and fearmongering fables in one of several ancient books (which were written in times when humans were convinced that the earth was flat) and believe in an omnipotent being in the sky...!?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 16th, 2011 at 10:52pm

Equitist wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 10:47pm:
Speaking of gullible Gerties...

How is it that those who refuse to accept the science of climate change also follow the draconian, divisive and hateful extremist rants and fearmongering fables in one of several ancient books (which were written in times when humans were convinced that the earth was flat) and believe in an omnipotent being in the sky...!?



Aaaahhh yes the phrase the science of climate, sounds impressive doesnt it.
Lets say it again.
The science of climate.
But what does it mean?
It has already been debunked and proved to be the scam of the century and then when those fraudulent emails went around ...from those scientists, you remember, the results didnt support those scientists of climate, so those scientists altered the results.
And now the global warmists are in denial to what those scientists of climate confessed to.
Yes the science of climate, sounds impressive doesnt it.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 16th, 2011 at 10:58pm

creep wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 10:52pm:

Equitist wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 10:47pm:
Speaking of gullible Gerties...

How is it that those who refuse to accept the science of climate change also follow the draconian, divisive and hateful extremist rants and fearmongering fables in one of several ancient books (which were written in times when humans were convinced that the earth was flat) and believe in an omnipotent being in the sky...!?



Aaaahhh yes the phrase the science of climate, sounds impressive doesnt it.
Lets say it again.
The science of climate.
But what does it mean?
It has already been debunked and proved to be the scam of the century and then when those fraudulent emails went around ...from those scientists, you remember, the results didnt support those scientists of climate, so those scientists altered the results.
And now the global warmists are in denial to what those scientists of climate confessed to.
Yes the science of climate, sounds impressive doesnt it.


No, despite what Andrew Bolt tell you to believe, the East Anglia CRU has been cleared by no less than THREE separate inquiries now. And despite what you might have been led to believe, those emails do not show the slightest evidence of fraud.

http://solveclimate.com/news/20100708/hacked-email-scientists-exonerated-misconduct-third-time

If a lie is repeated loudly enough then it simply becomes the Truth for people like you. That's because you rely on people like Bolt to tell you what to think as you are not capable of thinking for yourself, preferring instead to triumphantly wallow in your anti-intellectualism.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 16th, 2011 at 11:01pm

astro_surf wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 9:26pm:
That's a denialist blog and an op-ed written by a known reactionary hack, you moron, not expert scientific evidence.


A known reactionary hack? You sound like a smacking Robespierre, keeping tabs on all the enemies of the revolution.

Delingpole is a pretty astute journalist. And he won't call you a moron if you disprove him.




Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 16th, 2011 at 11:09pm

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 11:01pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 9:26pm:
That's a denialist blog and an op-ed written by a known reactionary hack, you moron, not expert scientific evidence.


A known reactionary hack? You sound like a smacking Robespierre, keeping tabs on all the enemies of the revolution.

Delingpole is a pretty astute journalist. And he won't call you a moron if you disprove him.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 17th, 2011 at 2:17am
TONY ABBOTT ACTUALLY EMBRACES DEBT!  :D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 17th, 2011 at 7:03am

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 3:42pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 12:00pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:08pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:13pm:
they have been predicting ice-free summers for the past 3 years and since that has never happened how do you claim it is FASTER than predicted?


Source or it didn't happen. I'm tired of correcting your unsupported statements.

And this is what I mean, the rate of decline accelerating faster and deeper than the worst case scenario projected by climate models. I've made this point to you before, climate models are only wrong in the sense that they tend to conservatively underestimate the impact of AGW.




Quote:
Polar Ice Sheets Melting Faster Than Predicted

The thick glaciers covering Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than scientists expected

By Lauren Morello and ClimateWire  | March 9, 2011 | 11

Ice loss from the massive ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating, according to a new study.

If the trend continues, ice sheets could become the dominant contributor to sea level rise sooner than scientists had predicted, concludes the research, which will be published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"The traditional view of the loss of land ice on Earth has been that mountain glaciers and ice caps are the dominant contributors, and ice sheets are following behind," said study co-author Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine. "In this study, we are showing that ice sheets, mountain glaciers and ice caps are neck-and-neck."

But that could soon change, Rignot said, because the rate at which ice sheets are losing mass is increasing three times faster than the rate of ice loss from mountain glaciers and ice caps.

"I don't think we expected ice sheets to run neck-and-neck with mountain glaciers, which basically sit in a warmer climate, this soon," he said. "At the same time, the mass loss on the ice sheet is not very large compared to how much mass they store."

Rignot was part of a research team that also included scientists from Utrecht University in the Netherlands and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

The researchers based their analysis on a comparison of two different methods to measure ice loss.

Continued...




INTERESTING  :o :o


Back under your bed horse.
The sky's falling because someones extrapolated figures don't look good.

IN PERTH THEY'RE EXTRAPOLATING FIGURES TO PREDICT THERE WILL BE A WATER SHORTAGE by 2020 if they don't build a SECOND DESAL PLANT.....

 :D :D :D :D :D


Keep laughing horsehead.
Somehow I would think there is a marked difference between extrapolating figures for nine years time as opposed to a thousand years in the future or the past.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 17th, 2011 at 7:07am

astro_surf wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 9:40pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 11:56am:

adelcrow wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:31pm:
Yep..Bolt and Jones have far superior scientific qualifications than Flannery.
You will also find that Flannery would happily admit to be wrong about plenty of things  in his life..just like every other human on the planet.
But when it comes to the damage carbon pollution is doing to our planet..the only ones in the negative camp are shock jocks, insane inbred british lords, and opposition pollies  ;D


His quals aren't the problem
It's the simple fact that not one of his doom and gloom predictions has happened.
Perhaps he should try reading tea leaves instead.


You keep repeating the lie even though you can't support it. Other than the lies Andrew Bolt writes, I doubt you've ever even read a anything Flannery has every written. And you keep repeating the lie even after it's been shown to be a lie. You people sure do like to revel in your pig headed ignorance, don't you?


Support what, like the dams aren't empty of water?
The lie is in that they are full, and we haven't run out.
Nice try.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 17th, 2011 at 8:32am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:07am:

astro_surf wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 9:40pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 11:56am:

adelcrow wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:31pm:
Yep..Bolt and Jones have far superior scientific qualifications than Flannery.
You will also find that Flannery would happily admit to be wrong about plenty of things  in his life..just like every other human on the planet.
But when it comes to the damage carbon pollution is doing to our planet..the only ones in the negative camp are shock jocks, insane inbred british lords, and opposition pollies  ;D


His quals aren't the problem
It's the simple fact that not one of his doom and gloom predictions has happened.
Perhaps he should try reading tea leaves instead.


You keep repeating the lie even though you can't support it. Other than the lies Andrew Bolt writes, I doubt you've ever even read a anything Flannery has every written. And you keep repeating the lie even after it's been shown to be a lie. You people sure do like to revel in your pig headed ignorance, don't you?


Support what, like the dams aren't empty of water?
The lie is in that they are full, and we haven't run out.
Nice try.


No, support that he ever made the sort of claims that Bolt suggests that he has. We've already looked at one example and shown that his only suggestion was that IF the drought conditions continued then Sydney could well run out of water. Thankfully those conditions DIDN'T continue and Sydney didn't run out of water, but it was perilously close. And just because that didn't happen during the last El Nino cycle doesn't mean it won't happen in the next. Because despite one strong La Nina year and a few record rainfalls, the climate trend in SE Aus is inexorably towards hotter, drier conditions and no amount of hand waving from polemicists like Bolt will change that.

But, as is always the caser with the denier-tards, once someone like Bolt has decreed that something is The Truth then it becomes The Truth and no amount of reason can alter that in you pea-like reptile minds.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 17th, 2011 at 8:34am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:03am:
Keep laughing horsehead.
Somehow I would think there is a marked difference between extrapolating figures for nine years time as opposed to a thousand years in the future or the past.


More flagrant lies from somebody whose entire understanding of the science comes from denier screeds and polemicists like Andrew Bolt.

Citation or it didn't happen, numbnuts.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 17th, 2011 at 9:27am

astro_surf wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 8:34am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:03am:
Keep laughing horsehead.
Somehow I would think there is a marked difference between extrapolating figures for nine years time as opposed to a thousand years in the future or the past.


More flagrant lies from somebody whose entire understanding of the science comes from denier screeds and polemicists like Andrew Bolt.

Citation or it didn't happen, numbnuts.


What lies are those.
You think it's easy to guesstimate world average temps from a thousand years ago when no white man was in the Pacific region let alone anyone in Europe logging temperatures, as opposed to in nine years time or a thousand years in the future.
The only citation you require is the one from the court putting you in the loony bin if you do.
Face it, the 'science' and entire arguement is based on guesstimate figures.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 17th, 2011 at 11:47am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:03am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 3:42pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 12:00pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:08pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:13pm:
they have been predicting ice-free summers for the past 3 years and since that has never happened how do you claim it is FASTER than predicted?


Source or it didn't happen. I'm tired of correcting your unsupported statements.

And this is what I mean, the rate of decline accelerating faster and deeper than the worst case scenario projected by climate models. I've made this point to you before, climate models are only wrong in the sense that they tend to conservatively underestimate the impact of AGW.




Quote:
Polar Ice Sheets Melting Faster Than Predicted

The thick glaciers covering Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than scientists expected

By Lauren Morello and ClimateWire  | March 9, 2011 | 11

Ice loss from the massive ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating, according to a new study.

If the trend continues, ice sheets could become the dominant contributor to sea level rise sooner than scientists had predicted, concludes the research, which will be published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"The traditional view of the loss of land ice on Earth has been that mountain glaciers and ice caps are the dominant contributors, and ice sheets are following behind," said study co-author Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine. "In this study, we are showing that ice sheets, mountain glaciers and ice caps are neck-and-neck."

But that could soon change, Rignot said, because the rate at which ice sheets are losing mass is increasing three times faster than the rate of ice loss from mountain glaciers and ice caps.

"I don't think we expected ice sheets to run neck-and-neck with mountain glaciers, which basically sit in a warmer climate, this soon," he said. "At the same time, the mass loss on the ice sheet is not very large compared to how much mass they store."

Rignot was part of a research team that also included scientists from Utrecht University in the Netherlands and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

The researchers based their analysis on a comparison of two different methods to measure ice loss.

Continued...




INTERESTING  :o :o


Back under your bed horse.
The sky's falling because someones extrapolated figures don't look good.

IN PERTH THEY'RE EXTRAPOLATING FIGURES TO PREDICT THERE WILL BE A WATER SHORTAGE by 2020 if they don't build a SECOND DESAL PLANT.....

 :D :D :D :D :D


Keep laughing horsehead.
Somehow I would think there is a marked difference between extrapolating figures for nine years time as opposed to a thousand years in the future or the past.

Yeh, of course, but your precendent is still finished!  :D :D ...have a nice day won't you!!!! DON'T FORGET TO KEEP SMILING WHILE YOU'RE AT IT!  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 17th, 2011 at 1:05pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:27am:

astro_surf wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 8:34am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:03am:
Keep laughing horsehead.
Somehow I would think there is a marked difference between extrapolating figures for nine years time as opposed to a thousand years in the future or the past.


More flagrant lies from somebody whose entire understanding of the science comes from denier screeds and polemicists like Andrew Bolt.

Citation or it didn't happen, numbnuts.


What lies are those.
You think it's easy to guesstimate world average temps from a thousand years ago when no white man was in the Pacific region let alone anyone in Europe logging temperatures, as opposed to in nine years time or a thousand years in the future.
The only citation you require is the one from the court putting you in the loony bin if you do.
Face it, the 'science' and entire arguement is based on guesstimate figures.




You should know by now that the guesstimations are only reliable when it is able to be used by scaremongerers to support the world wide scam of climate change or global warming.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 17th, 2011 at 1:08pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:07am:

astro_surf wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 9:40pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 11:56am:

adelcrow wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 8:31pm:
Yep..Bolt and Jones have far superior scientific qualifications than Flannery.
You will also find that Flannery would happily admit to be wrong about plenty of things  in his life..just like every other human on the planet.
But when it comes to the damage carbon pollution is doing to our planet..the only ones in the negative camp are shock jocks, insane inbred british lords, and opposition pollies  ;D


His quals aren't the problem
It's the simple fact that not one of his doom and gloom predictions has happened.
Perhaps he should try reading tea leaves instead.


You keep repeating the lie even though you can't support it. Other than the lies Andrew Bolt writes, I doubt you've ever even read a anything Flannery has every written. And you keep repeating the lie even after it's been shown to be a lie. You people sure do like to revel in your pig headed ignorance, don't you?


Support what, like the dams aren't empty of water?
The lie is in that they are full, and we haven't run out.
Nice try.




If there wasnt such an abundance of water the gullible gerties would be shouting about global warming, and Flannery would be repeating his claims of no rain cause of global warming.

Guess all the rain flushed those gerties down the sink.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by perceptions_now on May 17th, 2011 at 1:49pm
I post the following here because it is applicable to this discussion.


perceptions_now wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Soren wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 11:04am:
GREENS leader Bob Brown says the coal mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland floods because it helped cause them.

”It’s the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-fn3dxity-1225988806619



But not even the saucy IPCC head buys it:

SPECIFIC natural disasters such as Cyclone Yasi and the Brisbane floods could not be directly linked to man-made climate change, the world’s leading climate change authority said yesterday.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the general observation that climate change was bringing about an increase in extreme weather events was valid but scientists needed to provide much finer detail.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/summer-of-disaster-not-climate-change-rajendra-pachauri/story-fn59niix-1226057100026


Pachauri is a BOB BROWN DENIER!!!! Off with his comb-over!!

That would be quite correct!

Just as it would be a very large stretch to attribute a specific environmental factor, to the obesity of one specific person.

However, as time goes bye, the overall impact of the past & current environment, on human obesity, is becoming more apparent.

That analogy, is similar to how I would also view local, short term  weather events and longer term Climate Change!

Climate Change, can also be compared (in some ways) to another rare/unique event called Peak Oil.

In 1956, Peak Oil was a rare phenomenon, only put up as a "theory" by one person, M. King. Hubbert.

Hubbert's Peak Oil theory was derided by most and confirmation of the fist part of that theory was still 14 years in the future, when the USA finally hit the Peak of the Oil Production in 1970 and US Oil Production is still in decline today, some 40 years later.

Around 2004-2006, depending on what statistic you believe, we also effectively hit Peak Oil, Globally, as predicted in Hubbert's Theory!  

However, Hubbert's theory became much more than theory, well before Global Oil finally Peaked and if governments (local & Global) had moved early enough (say 20 years ago), then we would not be faced with a looming catastrophe, of such a magnitude.

The same goes for Climate Change, it has grown from small beginnings, to a point where the majority of Climate scientists are in broad agreement that our climate is heading for undesirable changes and that certain human related issues are contributing to that change.

So, again we have a choice, we can bury our heads in the sand and say they (the scientists) are wrong. We can take our chances and do nothing, like we did with Peak Oil and if we are right this time, then we will save a few $'s, lets say 5-10% of GDP.

However, if we do bury our heads, do nothing and it turns out that the majority of scientists were correct after all, then we have a far worse situation, than we currently have with Peak Oil.

If the scientists are correct and we do nothing in the way of mitigation, then the day will finally arrive, like Peak Oil, when it becomes obvious the Hubbert & the Climate scientists were correct and because the Climate Change timelines are so long, we will have consigned humanity to an unimaginably difficult future of great hardship.

Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 17th, 2011 at 2:29pm

perceptions_now wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 1:49pm:
I post the following here because it is applicable to this discussion.


perceptions_now wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Soren wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 11:04am:
GREENS leader Bob Brown says the coal mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland floods because it helped cause them.

”It’s the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-fn3dxity-1225988806619



But not even the saucy IPCC head buys it:

SPECIFIC natural disasters such as Cyclone Yasi and the Brisbane floods could not be directly linked to man-made climate change, the world’s leading climate change authority said yesterday.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the general observation that climate change was bringing about an increase in extreme weather events was valid but scientists needed to provide much finer detail.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/summer-of-disaster-not-climate-change-rajendra-pachauri/story-fn59niix-1226057100026


Pachauri is a BOB BROWN DENIER!!!! Off with his comb-over!!

That would be quite correct!

Just as it would be a very large stretch to attribute a specific environmental factor, to the obesity of one specific person.

However, as time goes bye, the overall impact of the past & current environment, on human obesity, is becoming more apparent.

That analogy, is similar to how I would also view local, short term  weather events and longer term Climate Change!

Climate Change, can also be compared (in some ways) to another rare/unique event called Peak Oil.

In 1956, Peak Oil was a rare phenomenon, only put up as a "theory" by one person, M. King. Hubbert.

Hubbert's Peak Oil theory was derided by most and confirmation of the fist part of that theory was still 14 years in the future, when the USA finally hit the Peak of the Oil Production in 1970 and US Oil Production is still in decline today, some 40 years later.

Around 2004-2006, depending on what statistic you believe, we also effectively hit Peak Oil, Globally, as predicted in Hubbert's Theory!  

However, Hubbert's theory became much more than theory, well before Global Oil finally Peaked and if governments (local & Global) had moved early enough (say 20 years ago), then we would not be faced with a looming catastrophe, of such a magnitude.

The same goes for Climate Change, it has grown from small beginnings, to a point where the majority of Climate scientists are in broad agreement that our climate is heading for undesirable changes and that certain human related issues are contributing to that change.

So, again we have a choice, we can bury our heads in the sand and say they (the scientists) are wrong. We can take our chances and do nothing, like we did with Peak Oil and if we are right this time, then we will save a few $'s, lets say 5-10% of GDP.

However, if we do bury our heads, do nothing and it turns out that the majority of scientists were correct after all, then we have a far worse situation, than we currently have with Peak Oil.

If the scientists are correct and we do nothing in the way of mitigation, then the day will finally arrive, like Peak Oil, when it becomes obvious the Hubbert & the Climate scientists were correct and because the Climate Change timelines are so long, we will have consigned humanity to an unimaginably difficult future of great hardship.

Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  


Good news.
It wont be us or our children thankfully.
It will be our childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, children.
And whilst we are talking about predictions and science fiction, we could say that by half way through the above mankind will be in space settling on other planets. :)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by perceptions_now on May 17th, 2011 at 2:42pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 1:49pm:
I post the following here because it is applicable to this discussion.


perceptions_now wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Soren wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 11:04am:
GREENS leader Bob Brown says the coal mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland floods because it helped cause them.

”It’s the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-fn3dxity-1225988806619



But not even the saucy IPCC head buys it:

SPECIFIC natural disasters such as Cyclone Yasi and the Brisbane floods could not be directly linked to man-made climate change, the world’s leading climate change authority said yesterday.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the general observation that climate change was bringing about an increase in extreme weather events was valid but scientists needed to provide much finer detail.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/summer-of-disaster-not-climate-change-rajendra-pachauri/story-fn59niix-1226057100026


Pachauri is a BOB BROWN DENIER!!!! Off with his comb-over!!

That would be quite correct!

Just as it would be a very large stretch to attribute a specific environmental factor, to the obesity of one specific person.

However, as time goes bye, the overall impact of the past & current environment, on human obesity, is becoming more apparent.

That analogy, is similar to how I would also view local, short term  weather events and longer term Climate Change!

Climate Change, can also be compared (in some ways) to another rare/unique event called Peak Oil.

In 1956, Peak Oil was a rare phenomenon, only put up as a "theory" by one person, M. King. Hubbert.

Hubbert's Peak Oil theory was derided by most and confirmation of the fist part of that theory was still 14 years in the future, when the USA finally hit the Peak of the Oil Production in 1970 and US Oil Production is still in decline today, some 40 years later.

Around 2004-2006, depending on what statistic you believe, we also effectively hit Peak Oil, Globally, as predicted in Hubbert's Theory!  

However, Hubbert's theory became much more than theory, well before Global Oil finally Peaked and if governments (local & Global) had moved early enough (say 20 years ago), then we would not be faced with a looming catastrophe, of such a magnitude.

The same goes for Climate Change, it has grown from small beginnings, to a point where the majority of Climate scientists are in broad agreement that our climate is heading for undesirable changes and that certain human related issues are contributing to that change.

So, again we have a choice, we can bury our heads in the sand and say they (the scientists) are wrong. We can take our chances and do nothing, like we did with Peak Oil and if we are right this time, then we will save a few $'s, lets say 5-10% of GDP.

However, if we do bury our heads, do nothing and it turns out that the majority of scientists were correct after all, then we have a far worse situation, than we currently have with Peak Oil.

If the scientists are correct and we do nothing in the way of mitigation, then the day will finally arrive, like Peak Oil, when it becomes obvious the Hubbert & the Climate scientists were correct and because the Climate Change timelines are so long, we will have consigned humanity to an unimaginably difficult future of great hardship.

Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  


Good news.
It wont be us or our children thankfully.
It will be our childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, children.
And whilst we are talking about predictions and science fiction, we could say that by half way through the above mankind will be in space settling on other planets. :)


I think, you will find that is incorrect!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 17th, 2011 at 7:37pm

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 9:54pm:

freediver wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 9:36pm:

Soren wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 8:53pm:

freediver wrote on May 16th, 2011 at 6:46pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:19pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 4:38pm:
you fail to understand the credibility of claiming ALL weather events as evidence of CC. the recent rought in australia was not unprecedented. nor was the floods. but you want to claim both.


I'm not talking about weather events,


Bullsh!t, with respect.

When there is a hurricane, a flood, a bushfire, a drought - all weather events - the 'do something about the climate' brigade are very, very happy to cite these events as proof of climate change caused by man - and woman (we want to be inclusive, don't we.).



Do you agree that Abbott lied about what Flannery said?


No.

(we've done this already, FD, don't be like a goldfish; for them it's a brand new world at every turn of the aquarium.)


You keep getting distracted before you are able to comment on it Soren. Remember the picture I drew for you?



No. Do you?


Here you go again Soren. Seeing as you keep having trouble with it, I'll add it to my signature for you.


freediver wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 7:15pm:

Soren wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 6:51pm:

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2011 at 1:02pm:
So basically Abbott lied and you now try desperately to change the topic, but as soon as you are offered a chance to defend Abbott, you suddenly get all shy on us?



WHat did Flannery say? And what did Abbott say that was a lie about what Flannery said?


From the opening post in this thread:


freediver wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:07pm:
If the coalition keeps stumbling on such basic mathematical and logical concepts, how can they be expected to grasp the science and the economics of the issue?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#should-tony-abbott-apologise-to-tim-flannery


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 17th, 2011 at 8:30pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:27am:

astro_surf wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 8:34am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:03am:
Keep laughing horsehead.
Somehow I would think there is a marked difference between extrapolating figures for nine years time as opposed to a thousand years in the future or the past.


More flagrant lies from somebody whose entire understanding of the science comes from denier screeds and polemicists like Andrew Bolt.

Citation or it didn't happen, numbnuts.


What lies are those.
You think it's easy to guesstimate world average temps from a thousand years ago when no white man was in the Pacific region let alone anyone in Europe logging temperatures, as opposed to in nine years time or a thousand years in the future.
The only citation you require is the one from the court putting you in the loony bin if you do.
Face it, the 'science' and entire arguement is based on guesstimate figures.


A. You don't need "white men" to record temperature, you racist piece of poo, there are many, many ways to accurately reconstruct past climatic conditions through a wide variety of proxy measurements.

B. Calculating future climatic conditions is merely a case of knowing the physical properties of particular gasses and extrapolating the rate at which they reabsorb and scatter longwave radiation. A very basic technique but one accurate enough for Sventius Arrenhius to calculate over 120 years ago and predict with a very high degree of accuracy what the temperature would be once CO2 concentrations reached the level they are at today. The only thing he got wrong was WHEN that would happen because the one thing he couldn't predict was the sudden rise in CO2 emissions. Based on CO2 levels at the time he made the calculations, he didn't think we'd see warming to the degree that we are for atr least 500 years. But the basic physical model for HOW the climate warms and the rate that it happens at is really quite elementary.

Once again, your simplistic assumptions belie the vacuousness of you grasp on the science that underpins AGW. You're basically just an ignorant chump with an ideological axe to grind.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 17th, 2011 at 8:51pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 2:29pm:
Good news.
It wont be us or our children thankfully.
It will be our childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, children.
And whilst we are talking about predictions and science fiction, we could say that by half way through the above mankind will be in space settling on other planets. :)


What are you, a guinea pig or something? You going to have a lot of descendents over the next hundred years!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 17th, 2011 at 9:20pm
FD, where did Flannery say in that interview - or anywhere ele - that temperature will rise as per your diagram (scary red line ) if emission is not cut to zero tomorrow by the whole world?


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 17th, 2011 at 9:27pm
Flannery: Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as 1000 years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed

...


Even if every country in the world adopts economy-killing carbon caps, they’ll have to wait about 1,000 years for global temperatures to fall, says Australia’s newly appointed climate commissioner.

Tim Flannery, a zoologist and author of an acclaimed 2005 book on climage change, “The Weather Makers,” compares skeptics of global warming to “flat Earth believers.” But he made a point that most global warming alarmists gloss over when he threw down this lightning bolt in an interview with Macquarie Radio’s Andrew Bolt:

   “If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.”

That’s not just in Australia, mind you. That’s cutting emissions worldwide.

Under continued questioning by Bolt, Flannery said: “Just let me finish and say this: If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.”

A stunned Bolt says in a classic understatment: “That doesn’t seem a good deal… Someone surely must have done the sums that for all these billions of dollars we’re spending in programs that it’s got to have a consequence in terms of cutting the world’s temperature. So you don’t know about Australia, you wouldn’t dispute that it’s within about a thousandth of a degree, around that magnitude, right?”

Flannery  agrees: “It’s going to be slight.”

A thousand years is a long time to wait for results.

———-

and here is the translation..you will never defeat global warming so you will be taxed infinitely for it..what a great idea..a problem that they say can never be fixed means you will ALWAYS pay for it..

and if we look at the accuracy of flanneys other predictions..he probably means 10, 000 years


Great scaremongering, but only the gullible gerties believe Flannery......a zoologist!

http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/tim-flannery-if-we-cut-emissions-today-global-temperatures-are-not-likely-to-drop-for-about-a-thousand-years/


And check out the video, some global warmists are starting to realise the hoax that they were scammed by.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 17th, 2011 at 9:37pm

creep wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:27pm:
and here is the translation..you will never defeat global warming so you will be taxed infinitely for it..what a great idea..a problem that they say can never be fixed means you will ALWAYS pay for it..

and if we look at the accuracy of flanneys other predictions..he probably means 10, 000 years


Great scaremongering, but only the gullible gerties believe Flannery......a zoologist!


What is a gertie anyway?

Flannery's comments are made on the basis that that is how long iot takes the carbon cycle to absorb CO2. It's a very elementary fact that anybody with even the vaguest of familiarity with geology should know. The only controversy here is the willful misinterpretation of the comment by Bolt, which seems to be a really prominent constant in everything you have to say about AGW, funnily enough. And if you think he said it because it will allow the Left Wing Elite to tax people for 1000 years instead of merely for 500 years, it shows just how much of a deads**t moron of a conspiracy theorst you really are! ;D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 17th, 2011 at 9:43pm
And when a gullible gertie "cant handle the truth" they resort to attacking.

If only they could debunk Bolt, but they cant, although they'd love to.

But what is funny, my comment was from another source LOL
And funniest is that it refers to a scientist that once believed in the world wide global warming scam but has realised that the global warming crap is nothing but a scam.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 17th, 2011 at 9:44pm

Soren wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:20pm:
FD, where did Flannery say in that interview - or anywhere ele - that temperature will rise as per your diagram (scary red line ) if emission is not cut to zero tomorrow by the whole world?


He didn't. There is an arrow to illustrate what Flannery said. The whole point is that he did not say what Abbott claims he said.


Quote:
If only they could debunk Bolt, but they cant, although they'd love to.


Abbott was parrotting Bolt. Bolt is just as wrong as Abbott.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 17th, 2011 at 9:51pm

creep wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:43pm:
And when a gullible gertie "cant handle the truth" they resort to attacking.

If only they could debunk Bolt, but they cant, although they'd love to.


We already have, you just refuse to acknowledge it because you're too stupid to understand what's being discussed.


Quote:
But what is funny, my comment was from another source LOL
And funniest is that it refers to a scientist that once believed in the world wide global warming scam but has realised that the global warming crap is nothing but a scam.


O Rly? And just how many citations does Dr. seeker401 have exactly?  ::)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 17th, 2011 at 9:58pm

astro_surf wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:51pm:

creep wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:43pm:
And when a gullible gertie "cant handle the truth" they resort to attacking.

If only they could debunk Bolt, but they cant, although they'd love to.


We already have, you just refuse to acknowledge it because you're too stupid to understand what's being discussed.


No, you haven't debunked Bolt in the slightest. In fact you can't.
It really is quite funny that you wish to go up against Bolt when he has already done the research and you just "can't handle the truth" of the results.
Just cause you say a circle is a square does not make it so.
The rest of the world know that it is a square.
But you can keep trying to convince yourself, meanwhile the rest of the world will sit back and ...just laugh at you.



astro_surf wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:51pm:

Quote:
But what is funny, my comment was from another source LOL
And funniest is that it refers to a scientist that once believed in the world wide global warming scam but has realised that the global warming crap is nothing but a scam.


O Rly? And just how many citations does Dr. seeker401 have exactly?  ::)



Yessssss....a scientist, a global warming scientis, Muller a former advocate of the crap global warming. But sanity got the better of him.
Maybe if you opened your eyes then you'd see.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Flying Binghi on May 17th, 2011 at 10:09pm
From the thread starter link -

“Over the next two decades Australians could use nuclear power to replace all our coal –fired power plants. We would then have a power infrastructure like France and in doing so we would have done something great for the world” via Tim Flannery.

Flannery's got a good idea there. We could then turn our coal into cheap self suficiant jet-A to power all them tourist carrying jets bringing money to Oz.. 8-)i
.  




Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Flying Binghi on May 17th, 2011 at 10:26pm
While i'm on Flannery and nuclear -

Climate change is so catastrophic and imminent that only nuclear power can save us,”….”If Australia were to switch from coal to nuclear power, we would make only a small reduction (about 1 per cent) in global carbon dioxide pollution. But it would be a noble act, for our carbon dioxide pollution is devastating the entire world.”- (The Age 5/8/  2006)


http://antinuclear.net/2011/02/11/pro-nuclear-tim-flannery-is-wrong-choice-for-climate-change-communicator/



........ One percent.. :-?  ...fek the entire countrys economy fer ONE PERCENT !!!  >:(   i
.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 17th, 2011 at 10:27pm

creep wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:58pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:51pm:

creep wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:43pm:
And when a gullible gertie "cant handle the truth" they resort to attacking.

If only they could debunk Bolt, but they cant, although they'd love to.


We already have, you just refuse to acknowledge it because you're too stupid to understand what's being discussed.


No, you haven't debunked Bolt in the slightest. In fact you can't.
It really is quite funny that you wish to go up against Bolt when he has already done the research and you just "can't handle the truth" of the results.
Just cause you say a circle is a square does not make it so.
The rest of the world know that it is a square.
But you can keep trying to convince yourself, meanwhile the rest of the world will sit back and ...just laugh at you.



astro_surf wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:51pm:

Quote:
But what is funny, my comment was from another source LOL
And funniest is that it refers to a scientist that once believed in the world wide global warming scam but has realised that the global warming crap is nothing but a scam.


O Rly? And just how many citations does Dr. seeker401 have exactly?  ::)



Yessssss....a scientist, a global warming scientis, Muller a former advocate of the crap global warming. But sanity got the better of him.
Maybe if you opened your eyes then you'd see.



No, you're an idiot, your Bolt quotes have already been thoroughly pwned but you're to stupid to admit it.

And who is this "Muller"? What papers has he published and how many citations does he have?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 17th, 2011 at 10:30pm

Flying Binghi wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 10:26pm:
.fek the entire countrys economy


No.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 17th, 2011 at 10:35pm
The whole global warming ideology rests on a global warming model, and thats it.
And that model is based on various assumptions of which have not been tested and some are not even realistic.
The simplicity of the warmists scaremongering that they do not want you to know for some reason. More Co2 causes more water vapour to rise, but for some reason the warmists claim that cloud cover won't increase.

Even if you believe in the crap of global warming then only need to increase cloud cover by 2% in the next 50 years then bye bye to the global warming situation.



Further, the main spokesperson for the scam, Al Gore, claims that China have every right to increase their Co2 emissions but advocates that the US must reduce their emissions, even though China are emitting 15% more than the US. Gore's reason is because the US are responsible for around 25% of the world's global warming so far whilst China has hardly contriubted any.
Great logic there Al.
Recall the Copenhagen summit, it was proposed that the US would reduce its emissions by 80% over the next 50 years. Sound good.

And here's the kicker, it was proposed to allow China to decrease its emission intensity by 4% for the next 40-50 years!


What the ...


So even with Australia on ZERO emissions, the world's Co2 will still be increasing for the next 50 years!!!!!!

So it is entirely irrelevant what Australia does!
It is entirely irrelevant what the US does!


But fortunately that deal was never agreed to as China refused to allow for inspections to be undertaken.




But ok, lets follow through with the Gillard proposal and impose whatever tax it is and start producing (green) products.
Gillard & Brown now feel good about themselves.
Our exports to China now increase in value, but China arent able to afford these new prices.
So what ever Australia produces under these 'green' products arent going to be bought overseas, why would they, they now cost too much.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 17th, 2011 at 11:05pm

creep wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 10:35pm:
The whole global warming ideology rests on a global warming model, and thats it.


No it doesn't.



Quote:
And that model is based on various assumptions of which have not been tested and some are not even realistic.


No it's not.


Quote:
The simplicity of the warmists scaremongering that they do not want you to know for some reason. More Co2 causes more water vapour to rise, but for some reason the warmists claim that cloud cover won't increase.

Even if you believe in the crap of global warming then only need to increase cloud cover by 2% in the next 50 years then bye bye to the global warming situation.


Interesting. I'll give you points for at least being across the latest sceptic line from ACTUAL sceptical climatologists, ie. Spencer and Christy. The fact that your citing a current debate, no matter how redundant the debate may actually be, is pretty impressive for a denier.

Personally, I'm happy to leave such debates to those qualified to have them and let evidence fall where it may. I'd be happier than anyone if Spencer et al proved correct but the weight of evidence suggests that won't happen. Spencer is a crusty old contrarian but he is qualified to make such arguments, whereas i am sure as poo not qualified to dispute them. However, there are those who ARE qualified enough to make the argument and they aren't to enamored with his hypothesis. i guess for plebes like us only time will tell!


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/feedback-on-cloud-feedback/



Further, the main spokesperson for the scam, Al Gore, claims that China have every right to increase their Co2 emissions but advocates that the US must reduce their emissions, even though China are emitting 15% more than the US. Gore's reason is because the US are responsible for around 25% of the world's global warming so far whilst China has hardly contriubted any.
Great logic there Al.[/quote]

It IS great logic. Why should China pay for America's pollution?  We developed this carbon intensive model of economic growth, we have an interest in and a responsibility to develop a low carbon model of growth. Granted, the Kyoto model was drawn up before China went into two decades of unimaginable growth and there is a good argument to be made that the previous designation of China as a developing economy isn't exactly true anymore, the fact is that whoever DOES successfully  develop a low carbon growth model will be the power thatr leads the world throught the 21st century and it would be in the West's interest that it be us.


Quote:
Recall the Copenhagen summit, it was proposed that the US would reduce its emissions by 80% over the next 50 years. Sound good.

And here's the kicker, it was proposed to allow China to decrease its emission intensity by 4% for the next 40-50 years!


What the ...


The goal isn't to reduce emissions to zero, it is to try and prevent a warming of >2 degrees C. Although the window is rapidly closing, we can still achieve something close to this if we do something and the models floated at Copenhagen COULD achieve it, but that it requires the West developing the model for China to adopt. Yes, we will have to do more, but as you correctly point out, we (the West) is responsible for the vast majority of excess carbon in the atmosphere today.


Quote:
So even with Australia on ZERO emissions, the world's Co2 will still be increasing for the next 50 years!!!!!!

So it is entirely irrelevant what Australia does!
It is entirely irrelevant what the US does!


No it's not. How can it be "irrelevant" if the worlds second biggest emitter reduces emissions by 80%? If we can slow emissions to almost zero within 50 years hen we MIGHT have a chance of NOT tipping the planet into an uncontrollable warming event of >4 degrees C.


But fortunately that deal was never agreed to as China refused to allow for inspections to be undertaken.





Quote:
But ok, lets follow through with the Gillard proposal and impose whatever tax it is and start producing (green) products.
Gillard & Brown now feel good about themselves.
Our exports to China now increase in value, but China arent able to afford these new prices.
So what ever Australia produces under these 'green' products arent going to be bought overseas, why would they, they now cost too much.


There WILL be a global agreement soon and we will have some form of green tariff's in place.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 17th, 2011 at 11:06pm
Still waiting for you 'Muller' citations, whoever the hell he might be.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Flying Binghi on May 17th, 2011 at 11:25pm
"...But it would be a noble act, for our carbon dioxide pollution is devastating the entire world..." via Tim Flannery


Yo, Flannery, get with the act. Yer gotta be more hip and call it carbon pollution now, not carbon dioxide pollution.

...and "our" carbon dioxide 'pollution' is devastating the entire world.. :-?  WOW!!!.. our ONE PERCENT of 'pollution' is doing that.. ::)


............ ;Di


.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by progressiveslol on May 18th, 2011 at 12:09am

astro_surf wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 11:06pm:
Still waiting for you 'Muller' citations, whoever the hell he might be.

Would the scientist David Evans do you, or maybe the climatologist Richard Lindzen.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/

I like the following.

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 18th, 2011 at 12:44am

freediver wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:44pm:

Soren wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:20pm:
FD, where did Flannery say in that interview - or anywhere ele - that temperature will rise as per your diagram (scary red line ) if emission is not cut to zero tomorrow by the whole world?


He didn't. There is an arrow to illustrate what Flannery said. The whole point is that he did not say what Abbott claims he said.


Quote:
If only they could debunk Bolt, but they cant, although they'd love to.


Abbott was parrotting Bolt. Bolt is just as wrong as Abbott.


I had another look. Global temperature averages incresed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees in the last century or so, depending on who you are listyening to. Not all (if any) of it is due to humans, and not all of that human contribution (if any) is due to CO2.

Flannery made a prediction about when tempratures would fall (in centuries), if all human CO2 emission topped (not methane or water vapor emission). I think it is a very stupid thing to say. He was rattled by Bolt and he came out ith a massive howler.

So Abbott is exactly right when he says that an Australian carbon tax will not make a scrap of difference to the environment in a 1000 years. He could have said any number between 1 and a million.

So no apology is due, Flannery is an ass.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by progressiveslol on May 18th, 2011 at 1:23am

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 12:44am:

freediver wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:44pm:

Soren wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:20pm:
FD, where did Flannery say in that interview - or anywhere ele - that temperature will rise as per your diagram (scary red line ) if emission is not cut to zero tomorrow by the whole world?


He didn't. There is an arrow to illustrate what Flannery said. The whole point is that he did not say what Abbott claims he said.


Quote:
If only they could debunk Bolt, but they cant, although they'd love to.


Abbott was parrotting Bolt. Bolt is just as wrong as Abbott.


I had another look. Global temperature averages incresed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees in the last century or so, depending on who you are listyening to. Not all (if any) of it is due to humans, and not all of that human contribution (if any) is due to CO2.

Flannery made a prediction about when tempratures would fall (in centuries), if all human CO2 emission topped (not methane or water vapor emission). I think it is a very stupid thing to say. He was rattled by Bolt and he came out ith a massive howler.

So Abbott is exactly right when he says that an Australian carbon tax will not make a scrap of difference to the environment in a 1000 years. He could have said any number between 1 and a million.

So no apology is due, Flannery is an ass.

If only he could have answered about our 1% emissions. Does that mean it could take 100000 years to show a difference in temperature if we go it alone and stop all emissions.

/sarcasm

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 18th, 2011 at 5:45am
And for the gullible gerties out there


Here's a global warmist Professor in Physics Richard Muller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 18th, 2011 at 6:03am

astro_surf wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 11:05pm:

creep wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 10:35pm:
The whole global warming ideology rests on a global warming model, and thats it.


No it doesn't.



Quote:
And that model is based on various assumptions of which have not been tested and some are not even realistic.


No it's not.

[quote]The simplicity of the warmists scaremongering that they do not want you to know for some reason. More Co2 causes more water vapour to rise, but for some reason the warmists claim that cloud cover won't increase.

Even if you believe in the crap of global warming then only need to increase cloud cover by 2% in the next 50 years then bye bye to the global warming situation.


Interesting. I'll give you points for at least being across the latest sceptic line from ACTUAL sceptical climatologists, ie. Spencer and Christy. The fact that your citing a current debate, no matter how redundant the debate may actually be, is pretty impressive for a denier.

Personally, I'm happy to leave such debates to those qualified to have them and let evidence fall where it may. I'd be happier than anyone if Spencer et al proved correct but the weight of evidence suggests that won't happen. Spencer is a crusty old contrarian but he is qualified to make such arguments, whereas i am sure as poo not qualified to dispute them. However, there are those who ARE qualified enough to make the argument and they aren't to enamored with his hypothesis. i guess for plebes like us only time will tell!


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/feedback-on-cloud-feedback/



Further, the main spokesperson for the scam, Al Gore, claims that China have every right to increase their Co2 emissions but advocates that the US must reduce their emissions, even though China are emitting 15% more than the US. Gore's reason is because the US are responsible for around 25% of the world's global warming so far whilst China has hardly contriubted any.
Great logic there Al.[/quote]

It IS great logic. Why should China pay for America's pollution?  We developed this carbon intensive model of economic growth, we have an interest in and a responsibility to develop a low carbon model of growth. Granted, the Kyoto model was drawn up before China went into two decades of unimaginable growth and there is a good argument to be made that the previous designation of China as a developing economy isn't exactly true anymore, the fact is that whoever DOES successfully  develop a low carbon growth model will be the power thatr leads the world throught the 21st century and it would be in the West's interest that it be us.


Quote:
Recall the Copenhagen summit, it was proposed that the US would reduce its emissions by 80% over the next 50 years. Sound good.

And here's the kicker, it was proposed to allow China to decrease its emission intensity by 4% for the next 40-50 years!


What the ...


The goal isn't to reduce emissions to zero, it is to try and prevent a warming of >2 degrees C. Although the window is rapidly closing, we can still achieve something close to this if we do something and the models floated at Copenhagen COULD achieve it, but that it requires the West developing the model for China to adopt. Yes, we will have to do more, but as you correctly point out, we (the West) is responsible for the vast majority of excess carbon in the atmosphere today.


Quote:
So even with Australia on ZERO emissions, the world's Co2 will still be increasing for the next 50 years!!!!!!

So it is entirely irrelevant what Australia does!
It is entirely irrelevant what the US does!


No it's not. How can it be "irrelevant" if the worlds second biggest emitter reduces emissions by 80%? If we can slow emissions to almost zero within 50 years hen we MIGHT have a chance of NOT tipping the planet into an uncontrollable warming event of >4 degrees C.


But fortunately that deal was never agreed to as China refused to allow for inspections to be undertaken.





Quote:
But ok, lets follow through with the Gillard proposal and impose whatever tax it is and start producing (green) products.
Gillard & Brown now feel good about themselves.
Our exports to China now increase in value, but China arent able to afford these new prices.
So what ever Australia produces under these 'green' products arent going to be bought overseas, why would they, they now cost too much.


There WILL be a global agreement soon and we will have some form of green tariff's in place.
[/quote]



You're just embarrassing yourself now.
You don't understand the issue whatsoever.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 18th, 2011 at 7:07am

perceptions_now wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 2:42pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 1:49pm:
I post the following here because it is applicable to this discussion.


perceptions_now wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Soren wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 11:04am:
GREENS leader Bob Brown says the coal mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland floods because it helped cause them.

”It’s the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-fn3dxity-1225988806619



But not even the saucy IPCC head buys it:

SPECIFIC natural disasters such as Cyclone Yasi and the Brisbane floods could not be directly linked to man-made climate change, the world’s leading climate change authority said yesterday.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the general observation that climate change was bringing about an increase in extreme weather events was valid but scientists needed to provide much finer detail.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/summer-of-disaster-not-climate-change-rajendra-pachauri/story-fn59niix-1226057100026


Pachauri is a BOB BROWN DENIER!!!! Off with his comb-over!!

That would be quite correct!

Just as it would be a very large stretch to attribute a specific environmental factor, to the obesity of one specific person.

However, as time goes bye, the overall impact of the past & current environment, on human obesity, is becoming more apparent.

That analogy, is similar to how I would also view local, short term  weather events and longer term Climate Change!

Climate Change, can also be compared (in some ways) to another rare/unique event called Peak Oil.

In 1956, Peak Oil was a rare phenomenon, only put up as a "theory" by one person, M. King. Hubbert.

Hubbert's Peak Oil theory was derided by most and confirmation of the fist part of that theory was still 14 years in the future, when the USA finally hit the Peak of the Oil Production in 1970 and US Oil Production is still in decline today, some 40 years later.

Around 2004-2006, depending on what statistic you believe, we also effectively hit Peak Oil, Globally, as predicted in Hubbert's Theory!  

However, Hubbert's theory became much more than theory, well before Global Oil finally Peaked and if governments (local & Global) had moved early enough (say 20 years ago), then we would not be faced with a looming catastrophe, of such a magnitude.

The same goes for Climate Change, it has grown from small beginnings, to a point where the majority of Climate scientists are in broad agreement that our climate is heading for undesirable changes and that certain human related issues are contributing to that change.

So, again we have a choice, we can bury our heads in the sand and say they (the scientists) are wrong. We can take our chances and do nothing, like we did with Peak Oil and if we are right this time, then we will save a few $'s, lets say 5-10% of GDP.

However, if we do bury our heads, do nothing and it turns out that the majority of scientists were correct after all, then we have a far worse situation, than we currently have with Peak Oil.

If the scientists are correct and we do nothing in the way of mitigation, then the day will finally arrive, like Peak Oil, when it becomes obvious the Hubbert & the Climate scientists were correct and because the Climate Change timelines are so long, we will have consigned humanity to an unimaginably difficult future of great hardship.

Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  


Good news.
It wont be us or our children thankfully.
It will be our childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, children.
And whilst we are talking about predictions and science fiction, we could say that by half way through the above mankind will be in space settling on other planets. :)


I think, you will find that is incorrect!


Ke?
I suspect I won't be around.
Will you?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by buzzanddidj on May 18th, 2011 at 7:20am

creep wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:50pm:



Wonder when Flannery will be retracking his outrageous comments


 




As in repeating ?




Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 18th, 2011 at 7:30am

astro_surf wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 9:27am:

astro_surf wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 8:34am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 7:03am:
Keep laughing horsehead.
Somehow I would think there is a marked difference between extrapolating figures for nine years time as opposed to a thousand years in the future or the past.


More flagrant lies from somebody whose entire understanding of the science comes from denier screeds and polemicists like Andrew Bolt.

Citation or it didn't happen, numbnuts.


What lies are those.
You think it's easy to guesstimate world average temps from a thousand years ago when no white man was in the Pacific region let alone anyone in Europe logging temperatures, as opposed to in nine years time or a thousand years in the future.
The only citation you require is the one from the court putting you in the loony bin if you do.
Face it, the 'science' and entire arguement is based on guesstimate figures.


A. You don't need "white men" to record temperature, you racist piece of poo, there are many, many ways to accurately reconstruct past climatic conditions through a wide variety of proxy measurements.

B. Calculating future climatic conditions is merely a case of knowing the physical properties of particular gasses and extrapolating the rate at which they reabsorb and scatter longwave radiation. A very basic technique but one accurate enough for Sventius Arrenhius to calculate over 120 years ago and predict with a very high degree of accuracy what the temperature would be once CO2 concentrations reached the level they are at today. The only thing he got wrong was WHEN that would happen because the one thing he couldn't predict was the sudden rise in CO2 emissions. Based on CO2 levels at the time he made the calculations, he didn't think we'd see warming to the degree that we are for atr least 500 years. But the basic physical model for HOW the climate warms and the rate that it happens at is really quite elementary.

Once again, your simplistic assumptions belie the vacuousness of you grasp on the science that underpins AGW. You're basically just an ignorant chump with an ideological axe to grind.


I stated nothing racist in my post chump, so no point bandying that word around.
If you can provide evidence that other races were logging temperatures a thousand years ago, I could accept that however we both know it never happened.
And your 'proxy' measurement is just another word for guess isn't it.
However the alarmists today don't like using that word so another word is used meaning the same thing.
You can twist the words all you like, the 'science' is based on guesswork and the information is then extrapolated from there.
Your hypothesis at B is theoretical also based on extrapolation based on a theory.
Sventius Arrenhius may well have been a clever cookie, but he wouldn't have known the first thing about gasses reabsorbing longwave radiation nor could he have calculated the level of Co2 in the air now considering the technology available in the 1890's.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 8:34am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:30am:
No, it's not a "guess", proxy indicators are  checked against other proxy indicators to see whether they show the same trend. And I don't know why you point out that it's a 'theory', you're probably one of this "it's just a theory" chumps who can't distinguish between a scientific theory and a philosophical theory. theory is as close as you can get to absolute truth in science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[quote]Sventius Arrenhius may well have been a clever cookie, but he wouldn't have known the first thing about gasses reabsorbing longwave radiation nor could he have calculated the level of Co2 in the air now considering the technology available in the 1890's.


He wouldn't need to in order to be able to calculate the rate of warming for a X increase in CO2. It really is elementary physics.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 18th, 2011 at 9:17am
I have noticed that alarmists say there are no scientists in the 'denier' category (their words) but when you present one they simply dismiss them as nobodies.

hardly the actions of people who claim to be driven soley by the evidence.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 18th, 2011 at 9:32am

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:34am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:30am:
No, it's not a "guess", proxy indicators are  checked against other proxy indicators to see whether they show the same trend. And I don't know why you point out that it's a 'theory', you're probably one of this "it's just a theory" chumps who can't distinguish between a scientific theory and a philosophical theory. theory is as close as you can get to absolute truth in science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[quote]Sventius Arrenhius may well have been a clever cookie, but he wouldn't have known the first thing about gasses reabsorbing longwave radiation nor could he have calculated the level of Co2 in the air now considering the technology available in the 1890's.


He wouldn't need to in order to be able to calculate the rate of warming for a X increase in CO2. It really is elementary physics.


Elementary in the 1890's?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 18th, 2011 at 10:23am

astro_surf wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 8:30pm:
B. Calculating future climatic conditions is merely a case of knowing the physical properties of particular gasses and extrapolating the rate at which they reabsorb and scatter longwave radiation.



With respect, this eyewateringly ignorant and arrogantly, vehemently stupid statement sums up what's wrong with AGW proponets.

From recognising CO2 and methane and water vapor as greenhouse gases you and all other ignoramuses conclude that somehow you understand everything about how the entire global climate works to the extent that you are ready to make confident predictions. You just have no bloody notion of how little you know because the little bit that you may have grasped - or better, groped at- has filled your mind entirely.

You are bunch of smacking Alans and Jackies and Noels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNfGyIW7aHM



I don't mind ignorant people believing they know something. WHat I object to is their ignorance becoming the basis of far reaching government policy.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by perceptions_now on May 18th, 2011 at 10:37am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:07am:

perceptions_now wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 2:42pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 1:49pm:
I post the following here because it is applicable to this discussion.


perceptions_now wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Soren wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 11:04am:
GREENS leader Bob Brown says the coal mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland floods because it helped cause them.

”It’s the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-fn3dxity-1225988806619



But not even the saucy IPCC head buys it:

SPECIFIC natural disasters such as Cyclone Yasi and the Brisbane floods could not be directly linked to man-made climate change, the world’s leading climate change authority said yesterday.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the general observation that climate change was bringing about an increase in extreme weather events was valid but scientists needed to provide much finer detail.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/summer-of-disaster-not-climate-change-rajendra-pachauri/story-fn59niix-1226057100026


Pachauri is a BOB BROWN DENIER!!!! Off with his comb-over!!



Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  
[/b]


Good news.
It wont be us or our children thankfully.
It will be our childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens, children.
And whilst we are talking about predictions and science fiction, we could say that by half way through the above mankind will be in space settling on other planets. :)


I think, you will find that is incorrect!


Ke?
I suspect I won't be around.
Will you?


No, I will certainly be long gone before the worst of this arrives and so will you and most others, who are now alive.

That said, we won't have to wait anywhere near that long, to start finding out what some of the ramifications of Peak Energy (oil, Coal & the others) and Climate Change will be.
In fact, we are already seeing the leading edges now!

Whilst we may no longer be here to see the worst of what's coming, our children and their children (etc) will be and frankly, I don't care how much it may cost, but I would not want to leave them, without having tried to provide them with a reasonable fighting chance.

We need to get off our collective butts, stop thinking about ourselves, start  mitigating actions and at least try to give them that chance.

As you get a little older, you come to realise that all the wealth (money) in the world, does not buy happiness.

Personal happiness, is what comes when you see your children enjoying life. Happiness comes in the smile, from your 2 month old grand daughter!

I would happily forego what monetary riches we possess, in order that our children and their children have those possibilities in their lives!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Flying Binghi on May 18th, 2011 at 10:56am
.




Quote:
 ...their ignorance becoming the basis of far reaching government policy  


Yep, and their ignorance seems to be a fashionable whimsy at times. One minute there's one way we must go.. then 'flip-flop' off on a new 'we must do' tangent.


Flannery speaks...

"Over the next two decades, Australians could use nuclear power to replace all our coal-fired power plants. We would then have a power infrastructure like that of France, and in doing so we would have done something great for the world, for whatever risks go with a domestic nuclear power industry are local, while greenhouse gas pollution is global in its impact…..” (The Age 30/5/06)



Flannery, quoted 20 June 2010, “Why should we take the most expensive option in this country (nuclear power) which has always been recognized as having the most expensive and difficult option. We are going to see a whole lot of other technologies and innovations which are now well under way which we could use instead of nuclear power……. Such as concentrated PV technology, geothermal technology, wave power, wind power.”   http://antinuclear.net/2010/06/21/tim-flannery-goes-anti-nuclear/


Soooo... if we had gone and built all them nuclear power stations Flannery thought were "something great for the world" we would now be tearing them all down again because they be "the most expensive option"... ::)


(sarc) Geothermal.... Hmmm.. stake the countrys future on it ah would.. ::)








.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 18th, 2011 at 11:09am

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 10:23am:

astro_surf wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 8:30pm:
B. Calculating future climatic conditions is merely a case of knowing the physical properties of particular gasses and extrapolating the rate at which they reabsorb and scatter longwave radiation.



With respect, this eyewateringly ignorant and arrogantly, vehemently stupid statement sums up what's wrong with AGW proponets.

From recognising CO2 and methane and water vapor as greenhouse gases you and all other ignoramuses conclude that somehow you understand everything about how the entire global climate works to the extent that you are ready to make confident predictions. You just have no bloody notion of how little you know because the little bit that you may have grasped - or better, groped at- has filled your mind entirely.

You are bunch of smacking Alans and Jackies and Noels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNfGyIW7aHM



I don't mind ignorant people believing they know something. WHat I object to is their ignorance becoming the basis of far reaching government policy.


What an outstanding clip Soren which accurately describes the situation. :D.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 18th, 2011 at 11:18am

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:34am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:30am:
No, it's not a "guess", proxy indicators are  checked against other proxy indicators to see whether they show the same trend. And I don't know why you point out that it's a 'theory', you're probably one of this "it's just a theory" chumps who can't distinguish between a scientific theory and a philosophical theory. theory is as close as you can get to absolute truth in science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[quote]Sventius Arrenhius may well have been a clever cookie, but he wouldn't have known the first thing about gasses reabsorbing longwave radiation nor could he have calculated the level of Co2 in the air now considering the technology available in the 1890's.


He wouldn't need to in order to be able to calculate the rate of warming for a X increase in CO2. It really is elementary physics.


As the man said, "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." And so here you are, Space-Cadet, saying that it is elementary physics to calculate the rate of warming from increases in CO2. CO2 is the knob that controls the temperature, boys and girls.
Well, that was easy. Thanks. Next week, how to analyse your own DNA. It really is elementary biochemistry.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Dnarever on May 18th, 2011 at 11:40am
You may be able to find a less credible source than to cut and paste Bolt but I do not Know where.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on May 18th, 2011 at 11:43am

Dnarever wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:40am:
You may be able to find a less credible source than to cut and paste Bolt but I do not Know where.



http://greens.org.au/

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Dnarever on May 18th, 2011 at 11:50am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:43am:

Dnarever wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:40am:
You may be able to find a less credible source than to cut and paste Bolt but I do not Know where.



http://greens.org.au/



Funny

From your side of the fence you may be able to argue that they are about equal but in reality I think the greens have a lot more cred.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 7:02pm

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 5:45am:
And for the gullible gerties out there


Here's a global warmist Professor in Physics Richard Muller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI


And what has he published that calls AGW into question and how many citations does he have? (hint: a Youtube clip isn't considered being 'published'), because if he doesn't publish papers related to climate chnage then why should his opinion matter? Sure, he has a PhD in physics but would you go to a dentist if you had heart disease? Of course not. Why is climate science any different?

As for your clip, the man might have a PhD but that doesn't mean he is beyond misrepresenting the issue for an ignorant audience - such as yourself!


Quote:
Professor Richard Muller - another climate science denier exposed.
by Icarus Posted March 20, 2011

Muller exposes himself as a fraud in this embarrassing video:

It is Muller who is being dishonest here, not the climate scientists.

The WMO report he refers to, with the chart on the cover, is here:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog...

On the very first page, the credit for the chart is as follows:

   "Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records."


So the Professor is lying. The chart is not fraudulent in any way - it's very clearly a reconstruction using proxy data and modern instrumental data. It's exactly what it says it is.

Unfortunately this is absolutely typical behaviour from the anti-scientific 'deny and delay' crowd. They know the science doesn't support their position, they know they've lost the argument, they know they can't present any data of their own to refute global warming, so instead they make false accusations of fraud and malign the characters of decent, honest climate scientists such as Michael Mann and James Hansen. That's what they do, because that's all they have.

There is more. Muller accuses the climate scientists of trying to hide data from the public and other scientists. Again, he's lying. Nothing could be further from the truth, because all the details of the 'Divergence Problem' were published over ten years ago in the peer-reviewed literature, which Muller must certainly know -

http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu...


Follow this link for the original links: http://www.sp@m.com/united-states/professor-richard-muller---another-climate-science-denier-exposed/question-1597779/

And that is just one example of many in what is a veirtable litany of bog standard and easily disproved (for the REAL sceptics out there, at any rate) by some pretty basic cursory investigation.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 7:11pm

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:18am:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:34am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:30am:
No, it's not a "guess", proxy indicators are  checked against other proxy indicators to see whether they show the same trend. And I don't know why you point out that it's a 'theory', you're probably one of this "it's just a theory" chumps who can't distinguish between a scientific theory and a philosophical theory. theory is as close as you can get to absolute truth in science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[quote]Sventius Arrenhius may well have been a clever cookie, but he wouldn't have known the first thing about gasses reabsorbing longwave radiation nor could he have calculated the level of Co2 in the air now considering the technology available in the 1890's.


He wouldn't need to in order to be able to calculate the rate of warming for a X increase in CO2. It really is elementary physics.


As the man said, "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." And so here you are, Space-Cadet, saying that it is elementary physics to calculate the rate of warming from increases in CO2. CO2 is the knob that controls the temperature, boys and girls.
Well, that was easy. Thanks. Next week, how to analyse your own DNA. It really is elementary biochemistry.


And for all your hand waving you can't actually explain why it isn't the "knob" that controls global temperature, obviously because you dont understand the issue beyond what you've been told by the likes of Andrew Bolt. But that is exactly what it is:

From the science literature:

From Science: Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

From the American Chemical Society Carbon Dioxide As Earth’s Temperature ‘Control Knob’

And for the layperson;

From NASA: CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature

And Discovery News: Atmospheric CO2: Climate's 'Control Knob'

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 18th, 2011 at 7:15pm

Dnarever wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:50am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:43am:

Dnarever wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:40am:
You may be able to find a less credible source than to cut and paste Bolt but I do not Know where.



http://greens.org.au/



Funny

From your side of the fence you may be able to argue that they are about equal but in reality I think the greens have a lot more cred.


Funniest thing Ive heard all week! Greens with credibility???? Bolt has been right a lot more than the Greens on almost any topic.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 7:15pm

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 10:23am:

astro_surf wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 8:30pm:
B. Calculating future climatic conditions is merely a case of knowing the physical properties of particular gasses and extrapolating the rate at which they reabsorb and scatter longwave radiation.



With respect, this eyewateringly ignorant and arrogantly, vehemently stupid statement sums up what's wrong with AGW proponets.

From recognising CO2 and methane and water vapor as greenhouse gases you and all other ignoramuses conclude that somehow you understand everything about how the entire global climate works to the extent that you are ready to make confident predictions. You just have no bloody notion of how little you know because the little bit that you may have grasped - or better, groped at- has filled your mind entirely.

You are bunch of smacking Alans and Jackies and Noels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNfGyIW7aHM



I don't mind ignorant people believing they know something. WHat I object to is their ignorance becoming the basis of far reaching government policy.


It's pretty funny you, a raging denier, calling anyone else ignorant! ;D You guys are as bad as creationists with your flawed logic!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 18th, 2011 at 7:17pm

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:02pm:

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 5:45am:
And for the gullible gerties out there


Here's a global warmist Professor in Physics Richard Muller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI


And what has he published that calls AGW into question and how many citations does he have? (hint: a Youtube clip isn't considered being 'published'), because if he doesn't publish papers related to climate chnage then why should his opinion matter? Sure, he has a PhD in physics but would you go to a dentist if you had heart disease? Of course not. Why is climate science any different?

As for your clip, the man might have a PhD but that doesn't mean he is beyond misrepresenting the issue for an ignorant audience - such as yourself!


Quote:
Professor Richard Muller - another climate science denier exposed.
by Icarus Posted March 20, 2011

Muller exposes himself as a fraud in this embarrassing video:

It is Muller who is being dishonest here, not the climate scientists.

The WMO report he refers to, with the chart on the cover, is here:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog...

On the very first page, the credit for the chart is as follows:

   "Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records."


So the Professor is lying. The chart is not fraudulent in any way - it's very clearly a reconstruction using proxy data and modern instrumental data. It's exactly what it says it is.

Unfortunately this is absolutely typical behaviour from the anti-scientific 'deny and delay' crowd. They know the science doesn't support their position, they know they've lost the argument, they know they can't present any data of their own to refute global warming, so instead they make false accusations of fraud and malign the characters of decent, honest climate scientists such as Michael Mann and James Hansen. That's what they do, because that's all they have.

There is more. Muller accuses the climate scientists of trying to hide data from the public and other scientists. Again, he's lying. Nothing could be further from the truth, because all the details of the 'Divergence Problem' were published over ten years ago in the peer-reviewed literature, which Muller must certainly know -

http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu...


Follow this link for the original links: http://www.sp@m.com/united-states/professor-richard-muller---another-climate-science-denier-exposed/question-1597779/

And that is just one example of many in what is a veirtable litany of bog standard and easily disproved (for the REAL sceptics out there, at any rate) by some pretty basic cursory investigation.


But you quote gore, flannery and garnaut - not one of whom is a scientist at all. But you happily ignore a professor of physics who makes the rather potent comment that tree ring temperature date does not match with either historical or measured temperature readings. But you use tree ring datae to come up with warming hypotheses when every test of their accuracy fails.

You sound only arrogant - not clever.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by longweekend58 on May 18th, 2011 at 7:19pm

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:11pm:

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 11:18am:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:34am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:30am:
No, it's not a "guess", proxy indicators are  checked against other proxy indicators to see whether they show the same trend. And I don't know why you point out that it's a 'theory', you're probably one of this "it's just a theory" chumps who can't distinguish between a scientific theory and a philosophical theory. theory is as close as you can get to absolute truth in science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[quote]Sventius Arrenhius may well have been a clever cookie, but he wouldn't have known the first thing about gasses reabsorbing longwave radiation nor could he have calculated the level of Co2 in the air now considering the technology available in the 1890's.


He wouldn't need to in order to be able to calculate the rate of warming for a X increase in CO2. It really is elementary physics.


As the man said, "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." And so here you are, Space-Cadet, saying that it is elementary physics to calculate the rate of warming from increases in CO2. CO2 is the knob that controls the temperature, boys and girls.
Well, that was easy. Thanks. Next week, how to analyse your own DNA. It really is elementary biochemistry.


And for all your hand waving you can't actually explain why it isn't the "knob" that controls global temperature, obviously because you dont understand the issue beyond what you've been told by the likes of Andrew Bolt. But that is exactly what it is:

From the science literature:

From Science: Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

From the American Chemical Society Carbon Dioxide As Earth’s Temperature ‘Control Knob’

And for the layperson;

From NASA: CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature

And Discovery News: Atmospheric CO2: Climate's 'Control Knob'


yet despite that there is massive amounts of evidence to totally dispute it.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 18th, 2011 at 7:20pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:17am:
I have noticed that alarmists say there are no scientists in the 'denier' category (their words) but when you present one they simply dismiss them as nobodies.

hardly the actions of people who claim to be driven soley by the evidence.




True, even when an advocate of global warming makes a presentation and advises you of what the global warmists are trying to deceive the people with.

The whole global warming ideology rests on a global warming model, and thats it.
And that model is based on various assumptions of which have not been tested and some are not even realistic.
The simplicity of the warmists scaremongering that they do not want you to know for some reason. More Co2 causes more water vapour to rise, but for some reason the warmists claim that cloud cover won't increase.

Even if you believe in the crap of global warming then only need to increase cloud cover by 2% in the next 50 years then bye bye to the global warming situation.



Further, the main spokesperson for the scam, Al Gore, claims that China have every right to increase their Co2 emissions but advocates that the US must reduce their emissions, even though China are emitting 15% more than the US. Gore's reason is because the US are responsible for around 25% of the world's global warming so far whilst China has hardly contriubted any.
Great logic there Al.
Recall the Copenhagen summit, it was proposed that the US would reduce its emissions by 80% over the next 50 years. Sound good.

And here's the kicker, it was proposed to allow China to decrease its emission intensity by 4% for the next 40-50 years!


What the ...


So even with Australia on ZERO emissions, the world's Co2 will still be increasing for the next 50 years!!!!!!

So it is entirely irrelevant what Australia does!
It is entirely irrelevant what the US does!


But fortunately that deal was never agreed to as China refused to allow for inspections to be undertaken.




But ok, lets follow through with the Gillard proposal and impose whatever tax it is and start producing (green) products.
Gillard & Brown now feel good about themselves.
Our exports to China now increase in value, but China arent able to afford these new prices.
So what ever Australia produces under these 'green' products arent going to be bought overseas, why would they, they now cost too much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI



the gullible gerties just hate it when facts are brought to the table as it destroys their whole scaremongering argument.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 7:21pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:19pm:
yet despite that there is massive amounts of evidence to totally dispute it.


So you won't have any trouble providing this thus far elusive evidence, right? Right??  Cos you guys talk about it's existence a lot but can never actually present it. What's the go there?!  ::)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 18th, 2011 at 7:22pm
And Professor Richard Muller, he's a global warming advocate.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 18th, 2011 at 7:23pm
More Co2 causes more water vapour to rise, but for some reason the warmists claim that cloud cover won't increase.

Even if you believe in the crap of global warming then only need to increase cloud cover by 2% in the next 50 years then bye bye to the global warming situation.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 18th, 2011 at 7:25pm
The gullible gerties icon Al Gore has been found exposed more often than George Michael.
Al Gore, claims that China have every right to increase their Co2 emissions but advocates that the US must reduce their emissions, even though China are emitting 15% more than the US. Gore's reason is because the US are responsible for around 25% of the world's global warming so far whilst China has hardly contriubted any.
Great logic there Al.
Recall the Copenhagen summit, it was proposed that the US would reduce its emissions by 80% over the next 50 years. Sound good.

And here's the kicker, it was proposed to allow China to decrease its emission intensity by 4% for the next 40-50 years!


What the ...


So even with Australia on ZERO emissions, the world's Co2 will still be increasing for the next 50 years!!!!!!

So it is entirely irrelevant what Australia does!
It is entirely irrelevant what the US does!


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 7:59pm

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:20pm:
True, even when an advocate of global warming makes a presentation and advises you of what the global warmists are trying to deceive the people with.

The whole global warming ideology rests on a global warming model, and thats it.
And that model is based on various assumptions of which have not been tested and some are not even realistic.
The simplicity of the warmists scaremongering that they do not want you to know for some reason. More Co2 causes more water vapour to rise, but for some reason the warmists claim that cloud cover won't increase.

Even if you believe in the crap of global warming then only need to increase cloud cover by 2% in the next 50 years then bye bye to the global warming situation.


You just keep repeating the lie until it becomes true, right? Why don't you put your money where you mouth is and provide a source for your claims?

For anyone out there interested in what the scientific literature actually says about clouds and negative feedbacks and creep's dubious 2% claims can get a layman's explanation of the various issues here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=spencer+clouds+2%25&x=0&y=0


Quote:
Further, the main spokesperson for the scam, Al Gore, claims that China have every right to increase their Co2 emissions but advocates that the US must reduce their emissions, even though China are emitting 15% more than the US. Gore's reason is because the US are responsible for around 25% of the world's global warming so far whilst China has hardly contriubted any.
Great logic there Al.
Recall the Copenhagen summit, it was proposed that the US would reduce its emissions by 80% over the next 50 years. Sound good.

And here's the kicker, it was proposed to allow China to decrease its emission intensity by 4% for the next 40-50 years!


What the ...


So even with Australia on ZERO emissions, the world's Co2 will still be increasing for the next 50 years!!!!!!

So it is entirely irrelevant what Australia does!
It is entirely irrelevant what the US does!


But fortunately that deal was never agreed to as China refused to allow for inspections to be undertaken.




But ok, lets follow through with the Gillard proposal and impose whatever tax it is and start producing (green) products.
Gillard & Brown now feel good about themselves.
Our exports to China now increase in value, but China arent able to afford these new prices.
So what ever Australia produces under these 'green' products arent going to be bought overseas, why would they, they now cost too much.


You keep repeating yourself but don't respond when your misunderstanding and logical car wrecks are challenged. Despite what you seem to believe, repeating a lie loudly and often enough won't actually turn it into a fact.


Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI

the gullible gerties just hate it when facts are brought to the table as it destroys their whole scaremongering argument.


They're not facts. Richard Muller deconstructed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 8:09pm
I just love how these self professed "sceptics" cast doubt on mainstream science but accept the word of complete cranks and total liars like Muller at face value without the slightest of question. That kind of selective scepticism is one of the hallmarks of woo, you know straight away that your dealing with complete wingnuts ;D

And for all the hot air surrounding the Climatgate hack, the CRU has been exonerated by THREE (count them, THREE) separate inquires know, with absolutely no evidence of any foul play. The obsession of people like creed really is the stuff of conspiracy theorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 8:13pm

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:23pm:
More Co2 causes more water vapour to rise, but for some reason the warmists claim that cloud cover won't increase.

Even if you believe in the crap of global warming then only need to increase cloud cover by 2% in the next 50 years then bye bye to the global warming situation.


That is an absolute lie and a complete misrepresentation of the scientific debate.


Quote:
What is the net feedback from clouds?

The skeptic argument...

Clouds provide negative feedback
"Climate models used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assume that clouds provide a large positive feedback, greatly amplifying the small warming effect of increasing CO2 content in air. Clouds have made fools of climate modelers. A detailed analysis of cloud behavior from satellite data by Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville shows that clouds actually provide a strong negative feedback, the opposite of that assumed by the climate modelers. The modelers confused cause and effect, thereby getting the feedback in the wrong direction." (Ken Gregory)

What the science says...
           
Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.

The effect of clouds in a warming world is a difficult one to predict.  One challenge is that clouds have both warming and cooling effects.  Low-level clouds in particular tend to cause a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight, while high-level clouds tend to cause a warming effect by trapping heat.

So as the planet warms, clouds can have a cooling effect if the amount of low-level clouds increases and/or if the amount of high-level clouds decreases.  Clouds will have a warming effect if the opposite is true.  Thus it becomes complicated to figure out the overall effect of clouds, because scientists need to determine not only if the amount of clouds increases or decreases in a warming world, but which types of clouds are increasing or decreasing.

For climate scientists who are skeptical that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will cause a dangerous amount of warming, such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, their skepticism hinges mainly on this cloud cover uncertainty.  They tend to believe that as the planet warms, low-level cloud cover will increase, thus increasing the overall reflectiveness of the Earth, offsetting the increased greenhouse effect and preventing a dangerous level of global warming from occurring.  However, some recent scientific studies have contradicted this theory.

Most of the cloud feedback uncertainty is due to cloud changes near the equator, in the tropics and subtropics (Stowasser et al. 2006).  Studies by Lauer et al. (2010) and Clement et al. (2009) both looked at cloud changes in these regions in the east Pacific, and both concluded that based on a combination of ship-based cloud observations, satellite observations, and climate models, the cloud feedback in this region appears to be positive, meaning more warming.

Dessler (2010) used cloud measurements over the entire planet by the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) satellite instruments from March 2000 to February 2010 to attempt to determine the cloud feedback.  Dessler concluded that although a very small negative feedback (cooling) could not be ruled out, the overall short-term global cloud feedback is probably positive (warming), and may be strongly positive.  His measurements showed that it is very unlikely that the cloud feedback will cause enough cooling to offset a significant amount of human-caused global warming.

So while clouds remain a significant uncertainty and more research is needed on this subject, the evidence is building that clouds will probably cause the planet to warm even further, and are very unlikely to offset a significant amount of human-caused global warming.  It's also important to remember that there many other feedbacks besides clouds, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is positive and will amplify global warming.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 18th, 2011 at 8:17pm
Oh no, another leading authority Lord Monckton from Copenhagen debunks the climate change and exposes the scam.

World temperatures haven't risen at all over the last 10 years but have declined. Global cooling! And that's from the source of the data!
Great news so no global warming and that's the facts.

In the last 30 years there's virtually been no change in the world's sea ice.
Another scam exposed.
Oh you can check this from the University of Illinois.

No increase on the US coast of land forming Atlantic hurricanes for 150 years

The combined frequency, duration & density of all hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones from around the world reached its lowest point in 30 years last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG3OnOiUCPo&feature=related




Notice how the scaremongering alarmists really are floundering when it comes to actual scientific facts.
Notice that the gullible gerties never check reports themselves, never go to the source of the data, instead rely on the scaremongering scammers.
It's quite amusing when the alarmist claims cherry picking by those that aren't fooled by the scam, yet he himself cherry picks. But the items he cherrypicks have been proved to be wrong.
And most interesting is that the gullible gerties campaigning about the scam don't know anything about global warming at all. Pretty much like on this board.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Dnarever on May 18th, 2011 at 8:19pm

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
Oh no, another leading authority Lord Monckton from Copenhagen debunks the climate change and exposes the scam.

World temperatures haven't risen at all over the last 10 years but have declined. Global cooling! And that's from the source of the data!
Great news so no global warming and that's the facts.

In the last 30 years there's virtually been no change in the world's sea ice.
Another scam exposed.
Oh you can check this from the University of Illinois.

No increase on the US coast of land forming Atlantic hurricanes for 150 years

The combined frequency, duration & density of all hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones from around the world reached its lowest point in 30 years last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG3OnOiUCPo&feature=related




Notice how the scaremongering alarmists really are floundering when it comes to actual scientific facts.
Notice that the gullible gerties never check reports themselves, never go to the source of the data, instead rely on the scaremongering scammers.
It's quite amusing when the alarmist claims cherry picking by those that aren't fooled by the scam, yet he himself cherry picks. But the items he cherrypicks have been proved to be wrong.
And most interesting is that the gullible gerties campaigning about the scam don't know anything about global warming at all. Pretty much like on this board.



Are you pro climat action Creep?

It is the only reason I can see for you posting all the least credible sources.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 8:22pm

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
Oh no, another leading authority Lord Monckton from Copenhagen debunks the climate change and exposes the scam.


HAHAHJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ;D ;D  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You total douchebag, I can't believe you just said that! What is he an authority on? What are his qualifications exactly?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 18th, 2011 at 8:22pm
So when will Tim Flannery be apologising and admit that global warming has been a complete hoax?
Not that anyone needs to be told that as it is common knowledge anyway, but it would be good for protocol.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 8:29pm

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
World temperatures haven't risen at all over the last 10 years but have declined. Global cooling! And that's from the source of the data!
Great news so no global warming and that's the facts.


Lie.




Quote:
In the last 30 years there's virtually been no change in the world's sea ice.
Another scam exposed.


Another lie



Oh you can check this from the University of Illinois.


Quote:
No increase on the US coast of land forming Atlantic hurricanes for 150 years

The combined frequency, duration & density of all hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones from around the world reached its lowest point in 30 years last year.


And yet another lie




Quote:
Notice how the scaremongering alarmists really are floundering when it comes to actual scientific facts.
Notice that the gullible gerties never check reports themselves, never go to the source of the data, instead rely on the scaremongering scammers.
It's quite amusing when the alarmist claims cherry picking by those that aren't fooled by the scam, yet he himself cherry picks. But the items he cherrypicks have been proved to be wrong.
And most interesting is that the gullible gerties campaigning about the scam don't know anything about global warming at all. Pretty much like on this board.


Haha, that's gold. Lord Mockton too! Such rich, rich satire. You HAVE to be taking the piss! ;D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 18th, 2011 at 8:30pm

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:22pm:

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
Oh no, another leading authority Lord Monckton from Copenhagen debunks the climate change and exposes the scam.


HAHAHJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ;D ;D  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You total douchebag, I can't believe you just said that! What is he an authority on? What are his qualifications exactly?



He is as qualified as Al Gore.  Most of us are.


Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 18th, 2011 at 8:36pm

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:34am:
He wouldn't need to in order to be able to calculate the rate of warming for a X increase in CO2. It really is elementary physics.



Can you run it by us quickly, please. Just the elementary bits.

Thank you so much.



Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 8:36pm

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:22pm:

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
Oh no, another leading authority Lord Monckton from Copenhagen debunks the climate change and exposes the scam.


HAHAHJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ;D ;D  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You total douchebag, I can't believe you just said that! What is he an authority on? What are his qualifications exactly?



He is as qualified as Al Gore.  Most of us are.


He's not, actually, AL Gore majored in oceanography, which is a damned site more than Monckton has ever did.

But, even if that were true, so what? I know I'VE never cited Al Gore as an authority, although his movie WAS a very good representation of the science, unlike Moncktons lies and misrepresentations.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 18th, 2011 at 8:39pm
Quick question: which year's climate data is used as the norm aganst which anomalies are identified as anomalies?




Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 8:46pm

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:39pm:
Quick question: which year's climate data is used as the norm aganst which anomalies are identified as anomalies?


Why? Can you not read?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 18th, 2011 at 9:00pm

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
Oh no, another leading authority Lord Monckton from Copenhagen debunks the climate change and exposes the scam.

World temperatures haven't risen at all over the last 10 years but have declined. Global cooling! And that's from the source of the data!
Great news so no global warming and that's the facts.

In the last 30 years there's virtually been no change in the world's sea ice.
Another scam exposed.
Oh you can check this from the University of Illinois.

No increase on the US coast of land forming Atlantic hurricanes for 150 years

The combined frequency, duration & density of all hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones from around the world reached its lowest point in 30 years last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG3OnOiUCPo&feature=related




Notice how the scaremongering alarmists really are floundering when it comes to actual scientific facts.
Notice that the gullible gerties never check reports themselves, never go to the source of the data, instead rely on the scaremongering scammers.
It's quite amusing when the alarmist claims cherry picking by those that aren't fooled by the scam, yet he himself cherry picks. But the items he cherrypicks have been proved to be wrong.
And most interesting is that the gullible gerties campaigning about the scam don't know anything about global warming at all. Pretty much like on this board.




All backed up by the person who gets the raw data and the University of Illinois.



Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 18th, 2011 at 9:02pm

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:46pm:

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:39pm:
Quick question: which year's climate data is used as the norm aganst which anomalies are identified as anomalies?


Why? Can you not read?



I can I just don't know where to look for the info.




Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 9:05pm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 18th, 2011 at 9:05pm
The gullible gerties claims are all debunked and proved wrong by Professor Muller

The whole global warming ideology rests on a global warming model, and thats it.
And that model is based on various assumptions of which have not been tested and some are not even realistic.
The simplicity of the warmists scaremongering that they do not want you to know for some reason. More Co2 causes more water vapour to rise, but for some reason the warmists claim that cloud cover won't increase.

Even if you believe in the crap of global warming then only need to increase cloud cover by 2% in the next 50 years then bye bye to the global warming situation.



Further, the main spokesperson for the scam, Al Gore, claims that China have every right to increase their Co2 emissions but advocates that the US must reduce their emissions, even though China are emitting 15% more than the US. Gore's reason is because the US are responsible for around 25% of the world's global warming so far whilst China has hardly contriubted any.
Great logic there Al.
Recall the Copenhagen summit, it was proposed that the US would reduce its emissions by 80% over the next 50 years. Sound good.

And here's the kicker, it was proposed to allow China to decrease its emission intensity by 4% for the next 40-50 years!


What the ...


So even with Australia on ZERO emissions, the world's Co2 will still be increasing for the next 50 years!!!!!!

So it is entirely irrelevant what Australia does!
It is entirely irrelevant what the US does!


But fortunately that deal was never agreed to as China refused to allow for inspections to be undertaken.




But ok, lets follow through with the Gillard proposal and impose whatever tax it is and start producing (green) products.
Gillard & Brown now feel good about themselves.
Our exports to China now increase in value, but China arent able to afford these new prices.
So what ever Australia produces under these 'green' products arent going to be bought overseas, why would they, they now cost too much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI



the gullible gerties just hate it when facts are brought to the table as it destroys their whole scaremongering argument.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 9:05pm

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:02pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:46pm:

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:39pm:
Quick question: which year's climate data is used as the norm aganst which anomalies are identified as anomalies?


Why? Can you not read?



I can I just don't know where to look for the info.


It is labelled pretty clearly on the chart. The source is here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/4

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 18th, 2011 at 9:08pm

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:05pm:
The gulolible gerties claims are all debunked and proved wrong by Professor Muller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI

the gullible gerties just hate it when facts are brought to the table as it destroys their whole scaremongering argument.



You're quite unstable, aren;t you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us

Muller is a liar.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 18th, 2011 at 9:10pm

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:36pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:34am:
He wouldn't need to in order to be able to calculate the rate of warming for a X increase in CO2. It really is elementary physics.



Can you run it by us quickly, please. Just the elementary bits.

Thank you so much.




LOL You're expecting a lot. He doesn't understand the issue itself and much less likely that of any physics.
Even when confronted with the raw data and facts all it can mutter and splutter is that he doesn't like being proved wrong.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by freediver on May 18th, 2011 at 9:57pm

Quote:
Flannery made a prediction about when tempratures would fall (in centuries), if all human CO2 emission topped (not methane or water vapor emission). I think it is a very stupid thing to say. He was rattled by Bolt and he came out ith a massive howler.


How was it stupid? How is it different from mainstream climate science?


Quote:
So Abbott is exactly right when he says that an Australian carbon tax will not make a scrap of difference to the environment in a 1000 years. He could have said any number between 1 and a million.


Is he exactly right in what he actually says? Remember, he was not giving his own interpretation, he was claiming something on behalf of Flannery. I got more of the quote from hansard:


Quote:
We heard from the government’s principal climate change salesman, Professor Flannery, just last Friday that it will not make a difference for a thousand years.


Do you understand that he is making a statement about Flannery, not just about his views on the tax - a statement that is a lie?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 19th, 2011 at 1:36am

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:46pm:

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:39pm:
Quick question: which year's climate data is used as the norm aganst which anomalies are identified as anomalies?


Why? Can you not read?

SOREN IS TRYING TO MAKE YOU HIS SLAVE!  :-[ :-[ :-[ :D

DON'T FLIRT WITH THE DARK SIDE OR IT WILL SWALLOW YOU!

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 19th, 2011 at 1:38am

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:02pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:46pm:

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:39pm:
Quick question: which year's climate data is used as the norm aganst which anomalies are identified as anomalies?


Why? Can you not read?



I can I just don't know where to look for the info.

YOU CAN'T READ BECAUSE YOU HAVE GONE BLIND!!  ;D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 19th, 2011 at 1:40am

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:10pm:

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:36pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:34am:
He wouldn't need to in order to be able to calculate the rate of warming for a X increase in CO2. It really is elementary physics.



Can you run it by us quickly, please. Just the elementary bits.

Thank you so much.




LOL You're expecting a lot. He doesn't understand the issue itself and much less likely that of any physics.
Even when confronted with the raw data and facts all it can mutter and splutter is that he doesn't like being proved wrong.

DO YOU MEAN SPLUTTER WITH CARROTS AND SUCH FORTH... LOL!  :o :o

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 19th, 2011 at 1:43am

freediver wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 9:57pm:

Quote:
Flannery made a prediction about when tempratures would fall (in centuries), if all human CO2 emission topped (not methane or water vapor emission). I think it is a very stupid thing to say. He was rattled by Bolt and he came out ith a massive howler.


How was it stupid? How is it different from mainstream climate science?

[quote]So Abbott is exactly right when he says that an Australian carbon tax will not make a scrap of difference to the environment in a 1000 years. He could have said any number between 1 and a million.


Is he exactly right in what he actually says? Remember, he was not giving his own interpretation, he was claiming something on behalf of Flannery. I got more of the quote from hansard:


Quote:
We heard from the government’s principal climate change salesman, Professor Flannery, just last Friday that it will not make a difference for a thousand years.


Do you understand that he is making a statement about Flannery, not just about his views on the tax - a statement that is a lie?[/quote]
NO I DON'T THINK HE(PRETENDINGLY) DOES...

I LOVE PLAYING PRETEND SOME TIMES!  ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 19th, 2011 at 5:57am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY



Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 19th, 2011 at 11:11am

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:19pm:
yet despite that there is massive amounts of evidence to totally dispute it.


So you won't have any trouble providing this thus far elusive evidence, right? Right??  Cos you guys talk about it's existence a lot but can never actually present it. What's the go there?!  ::)



Would you like a colourful graph would you?

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 19th, 2011 at 11:15am

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:36pm:

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:22pm:

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
Oh no, another leading authority Lord Monckton from Copenhagen debunks the climate change and exposes the scam.


HAHAHJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ;D ;D  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You total douchebag, I can't believe you just said that! What is he an authority on? What are his qualifications exactly?



He is as qualified as Al Gore.  Most of us are.


He's not, actually, AL Gore majored in oceanography, which is a damned site more than Monckton has ever did.

But, even if that were true, so what? I know I'VE never cited Al Gore as an authority, although his movie WAS a very good representation of the science, unlike Moncktons lies and misrepresentations.


But Lord Monckton wouldn't be as trustworthy as a Professor of Economics though would he.
We could all use a good beancounter when guessing and extrapolating numbers.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Soren on May 19th, 2011 at 1:47pm

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:36pm:

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:22pm:

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
Oh no, another leading authority Lord Monckton from Copenhagen debunks the climate change and exposes the scam.


HAHAHJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ;D ;D  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You total douchebag, I can't believe you just said that! What is he an authority on? What are his qualifications exactly?



He is as qualified as Al Gore.  Most of us are.


He's not, actually, AL Gore majored in oceanography, which is a damned site more than Monckton has ever did.



You know things about him that even he doesn't know.

"Al Gore was born on March 31, 1948, the son of former U.S. Senator Albert Gore, Sr. and Pauline Gore. Raised in Carthage, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., he received a degree in government with honors from Harvard University in 1969. After graduation, he volunteered for enlistment in the U.S. Army and served in the Vietnam War. Upon returning from Vietnam, Al Gore became an investigative reporter with the Tennessean in Nashville, where he also attended Vanderbilt University's Divinity School and then Law School."
http://www.algore.com/about.html



The 'climate' debate' hasn't been about the 'climate' for a very long time now.



Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by progressiveslol on May 19th, 2011 at 4:09pm

Soren wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 1:47pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:36pm:

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:22pm:

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
Oh no, another leading authority Lord Monckton from Copenhagen debunks the climate change and exposes the scam.


HAHAHJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ;D ;D  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You total douchebag, I can't believe you just said that! What is he an authority on? What are his qualifications exactly?



He is as qualified as Al Gore.  Most of us are.


He's not, actually, AL Gore majored in oceanography, which is a damned site more than Monckton has ever did.



You know things about him that even he doesn't know.

"Al Gore was born on March 31, 1948, the son of former U.S. Senator Albert Gore, Sr. and Pauline Gore. Raised in Carthage, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., he received a degree in government with honors from Harvard University in 1969. After graduation, he volunteered for enlistment in the U.S. Army and served in the Vietnam War. Upon returning from Vietnam, Al Gore became an investigative reporter with the Tennessean in Nashville, where he also attended Vanderbilt University's Divinity School and then Law School."
http://www.algore.com/about.html



The 'climate' debate' hasn't been about the 'climate' for a very long time now.

A large part of the reason is that they cant debate the climate change when they dont have proof, oh and the big windfall in global governance or complete local control keeps it political.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 19th, 2011 at 6:51pm
A lot of hot air but STILL no evidence. C'mon guys, you insist it's out there, let's see it! ;D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 19th, 2011 at 6:59pm
[quote author=soren2 link=1305115643/330#336 date=1305776836]

Yeah, i misread his Wiki page - he did take a class in oceanography though! ;D

But anyway, who cares about Al Gore? It's the weakest of all denier arguments:

"Uh, you know we have multiple lines of evidence supporting AGW and that EVERY scientific body on the planet supports the conclusions of the IPCC.."

"But Al Gore is fat! Hur hur hur!"

Truly scintillating intellectual discourse ::)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 19th, 2011 at 7:02pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 11:11am:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 7:19pm:
yet despite that there is massive amounts of evidence to totally dispute it.


So you won't have any trouble providing this thus far elusive evidence, right? Right??  Cos you guys talk about it's existence a lot but can never actually present it. What's the go there?!  ::)



Would you like a colourful graph would you?


Anything will do, anything other than you simply saying evidence exists. I would like to see the evidence, graph or no graph.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 19th, 2011 at 7:03pm

progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 4:09pm:

Soren wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 1:47pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:36pm:

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:22pm:

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
Oh no, another leading authority Lord Monckton from Copenhagen debunks the climate change and exposes the scam.


HAHAHJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ;D ;D  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You total douchebag, I can't believe you just said that! What is he an authority on? What are his qualifications exactly?



He is as qualified as Al Gore.  Most of us are.


He's not, actually, AL Gore majored in oceanography, which is a damned site more than Monckton has ever did.



You know things about him that even he doesn't know.

"Al Gore was born on March 31, 1948, the son of former U.S. Senator Albert Gore, Sr. and Pauline Gore. Raised in Carthage, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., he received a degree in government with honors from Harvard University in 1969. After graduation, he volunteered for enlistment in the U.S. Army and served in the Vietnam War. Upon returning from Vietnam, Al Gore became an investigative reporter with the Tennessean in Nashville, where he also attended Vanderbilt University's Divinity School and then Law School."
http://www.algore.com/about.html



The 'climate' debate' hasn't been about the 'climate' for a very long time now.

A large part of the reason is that they cant debate the climate change when they dont have proof, oh and the big windfall in global governance or complete local control keeps it political.


Correct Soren & Progressive


The gullible gertie is not up to scratch to debate the issue, never provides any factual evidence and whenever factual evidence is provided proving that global warming is a hoax the gertie is virtually running around crying "liar liar pants on fire" but notice that it cant disprove the facts.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by creep on May 19th, 2011 at 7:04pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 11:15am:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:36pm:

Soren wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:22pm:

creep wrote on May 18th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
Oh no, another leading authority Lord Monckton from Copenhagen debunks the climate change and exposes the scam.


HAHAHJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ;D ;D  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You total douchebag, I can't believe you just said that! What is he an authority on? What are his qualifications exactly?



He is as qualified as Al Gore.  Most of us are.


He's not, actually, AL Gore majored in oceanography, which is a damned site more than Monckton has ever did.

But, even if that were true, so what? I know I'VE never cited Al Gore as an authority, although his movie WAS a very good representation of the science, unlike Moncktons lies and misrepresentations.


But Lord Monckton wouldn't be as trustworthy as a Professor of Economics though would he.
We could all use a good beancounter when guessing and esxtrapolating numbers.




Cant get any closer to the raw data than Lord Monckton, and Monckton includes ALL the data rather than the scaremongerers who want to edit it as was shown by Muller's video.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 19th, 2011 at 7:22pm




http://climatedilemma.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/513px-monckton_of_brenchley-cropped.jpg?w=220&h=358

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by chicken_lipsforme on May 19th, 2011 at 7:31pm

astro_surf wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 6:59pm:
[quote author=soren2 link=1305115643/330#336 date=1305776836]

Yeah, i misread his Wiki page - he did take a class in oceanography though! ;D

But anyway, who cares about Al Gore? It's the weakest of all denier arguments:

"Uh, you know we have multiple lines of evidence supporting AGW and that EVERY scientific body on the planet supports the conclusions of the IPCC.."

"But Al Gore is fat! Hur hur hur!"

Truly scintillating intellectual discourse ::)



He's very good at buying prime real estate though isn't he.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by astro_surf on May 19th, 2011 at 7:40pm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 7:31pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 6:59pm:
[quote author=soren2 link=1305115643/330#336 date=1305776836]

Yeah, i misread his Wiki page - he did take a class in oceanography though! ;D

But anyway, who cares about Al Gore? It's the weakest of all denier arguments:

"Uh, you know we have multiple lines of evidence supporting AGW and that EVERY scientific body on the planet supports the conclusions of the IPCC.."

"But Al Gore is fat! Hur hur hur!"

Truly scintillating intellectual discourse ::)



He's very good at buying prime real estate though isn't he.


Apparently. But he's not a climate expert and shouldn't be treated as one.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Uncle on Nov 2nd, 2011 at 7:32pm

creep wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 5:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 12:25am:

creep wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:56pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:54pm:
Still waiting Creep.
I am not asking for Andrew Bolt's interpretations, where he tells you what "he thinks",Flannery has said, but actual links to Flannery making the claims that you have, seemingly falsely, attributed to him.



Once again it is a shame that you are unable to refer to the source that was quoted.
Shame that you have ignored Flannery's comments now that he has been proved wrong.
But you can keep your head in the sand, with the non-existant rains that we are having you won't have to worry about being drowned.

Nice article creep. Looks like Flannery is the kook Abbott said he was. No appology. Maybe Flannery should appologise to the Australian people.




This is right.
Flannery should apologise to not only Abbott but to Australia for his outrageous claims and scaremongering.
But the denialists of the scam will continue, as has been shown by one denialist above. Which is why I've had to spoon feed him.

It must be a total let down to the denialists to the scam having had their major scaremongerer's claims proven to be wrong.
So now that the scam has been exposed maybe the scammers will try another series of emails to "adjust" the facts to suit their scam.

It will only fool those that will believe anything despite the truth, the real facts and logic.
Hope Flannery's next scaremongering campaign begins with "Once upon a time..." it would make it so much better for the children!


Creep by name. Creep by nature.

Yes, Abbott should apologise to Flannery. So should Barnaby Joyce.

I dips me lid to freediver for putting a link to this on the forum's homepage.
I stand in the corner in disgrace for not noticing it earlier.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by gizmo_2655 on Nov 2nd, 2011 at 8:03pm

Uncle wrote on Nov 2nd, 2011 at 7:32pm:

creep wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 5:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 12:25am:

creep wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:56pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:54pm:
Still waiting Creep.
I am not asking for Andrew Bolt's interpretations, where he tells you what "he thinks",Flannery has said, but actual links to Flannery making the claims that you have, seemingly falsely, attributed to him.



Once again it is a shame that you are unable to refer to the source that was quoted.
Shame that you have ignored Flannery's comments now that he has been proved wrong.
But you can keep your head in the sand, with the non-existant rains that we are having you won't have to worry about being drowned.

Nice article creep. Looks like Flannery is the kook Abbott said he was. No appology. Maybe Flannery should appologise to the Australian people.




This is right.
Flannery should apologise to not only Abbott but to Australia for his outrageous claims and scaremongering.
But the denialists of the scam will continue, as has been shown by one denialist above. Which is why I've had to spoon feed him.

It must be a total let down to the denialists to the scam having had their major scaremongerer's claims proven to be wrong.
So now that the scam has been exposed maybe the scammers will try another series of emails to "adjust" the facts to suit their scam.

It will only fool those that will believe anything despite the truth, the real facts and logic.
Hope Flannery's next scaremongering campaign begins with "Once upon a time..." it would make it so much better for the children!


Creep by name. Creep by nature.

Yes, Abbott should apologise to Flannery. So should Barnaby Joyce.

I dips me lid to freediver for putting a link to this on the forum's homepage.
I stand in the corner in disgrace for not noticing it earlier.


I wouldn't have pegged you for a C.J Dennis fan Pete...

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Uncle on Nov 2nd, 2011 at 9:30pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 2nd, 2011 at 8:03pm:
I wouldn't have pegged you for a C.J Dennis fan Pete...


I'm a fan of most Australian literature (with the exception of "Battlelines" - although it is a good reference book and source of ball tearer quotes).
There is good stuff here. The home page of this place is very interesting. I admit I was quite surprised given the tone of the moderators.

Maybe they haven't read it either  8-)

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Dnarever on Nov 2nd, 2011 at 9:34pm
Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?

No all Australians

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Uncle on Nov 2nd, 2011 at 9:52pm
Yeah well that too.

Professor Tim Flannery. Appointed Australian of the Year by John Winston Howard and then ridiculed by those scientific luminaries - Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by Liberty on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:47pm
Well Tim Flannery is but another tool for the globalists agenda.
The real environmentalists know the truth that Carbon tax and the so called global warming are but a mere scam for these rotten globalists to gain full control of the population and industries, and further their financial stranglehold.
It is about population reduction, it is not about helping the environment, in fact the complete opposite.
The real pollution is not even being considered by most people, which is a threat. But the people behind the carbon hysteria, do not see this.
Look around and see the truth, think, see what is in your water, what is in your food, what is being sprayed over your heads, what is being dumped in your back yards.
The fact the climate changes are mostly through other changes being solar flares, magnetic shifts etc. The planet is in fact cooling. The ice flows have not decreased but they have shifted and increased.
I find it extraordinary that a well orchestrated propaganda machine has nearly totally hoodwinkled most people.
The real problems like GMOS, chemicals in the farming sector, chemtrails, HARPP, fluoride in the water, vaccines, fracking, fukishima, are not even mentioned.
Presently the nuclear power plants damaged in Fukishima, are presently are greatest threat. Nothing is being done about it. Potentially which could wipe out billions of people.
Already there is massive mutations in the sea life, you will then see massive mutations in all life.
So no Abbot should not apologise to Flannery.
Flannery should apologise to the world.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by 67klty on May 11th, 2012 at 1:40am
Politicians love to ride an issue to their inevitable goal - raise taxes. The climate has been warming since the last ice age and they are using this issue to fool ignorant and uneducated people into agreeing to pay more tax. The fact that they are willing to do this at the expense of jobs just goes to show how much they care about us.

Title: Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Post by warrigal on May 20th, 2012 at 6:46am
well said


Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.