Australian Politics Forum - The Great carbon con ......

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Great carbon con ......
Reply #30 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:10am

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 8:16pm:

Am I reading that graph right? The Medieval Cold period was no more than a drop of half a degree?
If so, can that be believed?

It's a study of global temperatures as I understand it, rather than regional. I'm not sure what your point is. I guess compared to Christopher Monckton's graphs, it's boring. They should have used more pink. Send in the clowns.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Great carbon con ......
Reply #31 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:48am

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:10am:

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 8:16pm:

Am I reading that graph right? The Medieval Cold period was no more than a drop of half a degree?
If so, can that be believed?

It's a study of global temperatures as I understand it, rather than regional.

Mr Musician, you don't even know what you are posting:

"From:

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction
of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:
Examination of criticisms based on the nature and
processing of proxy climate evidence"

So the Medieval Cold on the Northern Hemisphere was just 0.5 degree down on 'normal'?
No need to send nore clowns, we have as many as we can handle already; they have cornered the 'climate research on government grant' market and the 'communicating future doom' market, thank you very much.

Back to top

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #32 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:32am

[highlight]Denialists agree on every single point -/highlight]

lol, if that is the case, then perhaps you could expand on the part about setting up a new world order to enslave mankind, that is just one of the particularly interesting beliefs very often espoused by Denialism fans.

Another thing that I also find Denialists agree upon is, "never" let the facts get in the way of a good lie.
We have witnessed the case that merely totally disproving a Denialist lie(falsehood, deceit, shameless bunkum etc), does not reduce it's credibility, or usability at all, for any good Denialist.
Being, absolutely, proved false does not reduce it's credibility one iota for them, and they just repeat, and repeat, and repeat, the lie, until it takes on the aura of being an inviolable mantra of supreme righteousness to them.

Repeat after me, "the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is..............................................................................
............................................................................
ad infinitum.

No sensible person even tries to dissuade a true Denialist, because how can you reason with someone whose whole belief is built upon totally false and unreasonable information?
All we can do is continue to point out the glaring deceit and ignorance as it is delivered, so that utter rubbish, and intentionally deceitful misinformation is not left unchallenged, to try and minimise the number of people who get sucked in by their spurious line of bulldust.

Like the great Robert Menzies so often remarked, "Bullsh1t baffles Brains."

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #33 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 10:47am

mozzaok wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:32am:

[highlight]Denialists agree on every single point -/highlight]

lol, if that is the case, then perhaps you could expand on the part about setting up a new world order to enslave mankind, that is just one of the particularly interesting beliefs very often espoused by Denialism fans.

Another thing that I also find Denialists agree upon is, "never" let the facts get in the way of a good lie.
We have witnessed the case that merely totally disproving a Denialist lie(falsehood, deceit, shameless bunkum etc), does not reduce it's credibility, or usability at all, for any good Denialist.
Being, absolutely, proved false does not reduce it's credibility one iota for them, and they just repeat, and repeat, and repeat, the lie, until it takes on the aura of being an inviolable mantra of supreme righteousness to them.

Repeat after me, "the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is..............................................................................
............................................................................
ad infinitum.

No sensible person even tries to dissuade a true Denialist, because how can you reason with someone whose whole belief is built upon totally false and unreasonable information?
All we can do is continue to point out the glaring deceit and ignorance as it is delivered, so that utter rubbish, and intentionally deceitful misinformation is not left unchallenged, to try and minimise the number of people who get sucked in by their spurious line of bulldust.

Like the great Robert Menzies so often remarked, "Bullsh1t baffles Brains."

Before you all let the rhetorical horse run away with you once more, let's just see where it all starts.

Is the climate changing? Yes, it's always changing. There is no debate about this. The lazy shorthand of 'climate change' when 'man-made catastrophic climate cooling/warming' is meant is just that, lazy and stupid and/or deceitful.

What is the normal/ideal climate? Dunno.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes.

Is it a trace gas? Yes.

Is it even the primary greenhouse gas? No.

Is all atmospheric CO2 the man-made? No.

Can we control natural CO2. No

Can we control man-made CO2? Well, to some extent.

Are greenhouse gases the only determiners of climate? No.

How do all the determiners of global (not local) climate interact? Dunno. Too complex to model.

Can we control the other determiners of climate? Well.... no. We don't always know what all of them are. It's not a neat mathematical formula, global climate. It's not even a closed system.

What is the optimum amount of atmospheric CO2? Dunno. Optimum for what?

Was climate change in the past caused by man-made Co2? No.

Natural CO2? Er... no.

What caused past changes in the climate? Dunno but have a few guesses. Not CO2, that we know for sure.

In view of all this - how are we going to control the present climate change? Why, you ignorant denier, by reducing man-made CO2, of course!! That's so obvious, only evil deniers could not see it.

Back to top

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #34 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 12:22pm

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 5:39am:

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:

Huh?
Denialists agree on every single point - thanks largely to there being only one point: AGW is craparooney.

Climate change? Mebbe.

AGW? Meh...

Incorrect. Some believe that it's happening, but that it's totally beneficial. AGW is good for you - a bit like smoking. Steve Milloy and Bjorn Lomborg are examples.

Then there is the "Greening Earth Society". They loved it, and advocate V8's and live like there's no tomorrow. THey had some big names including such pseudoscientists as:

* Sallie Baliunas
* Robert C. Balling, Jr.
* Patrick J. Michaels
* Willie Soon
* Sylvan H. Wittwer, and
* David E. Wojick

If they think it's beneficial, and that they can contribute to it, they obviously must think it's happening, otherwise why bother thinking it's beneficial - eh?

So, thank you for smoking.

Ignorance is strength, comrade.

There is a theory, a quite a plausible one, that life on earth could be the victim of it's own sucess. For eons the biosphere (particularly the great forests) has been locking up carbon in the form of sediments, coal and oil deposits etc and the CO2 content of the atmoshere (vital for life) has dwindled.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #35 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 2:29pm

Soren wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 10:47am:

Is the climate changing? Yes, it's always changing. There is no debate about this. The lazy shorthand of 'climate change' when 'man-made catastrophic climate cooling/warming' is meant is just that, lazy and stupid and/or deceitful.

Did 6 million people die during WWII? Yes, people have been dying for years. They have always been dying. Dying is quite natural. It was only a mere 0.25% of the global population. Many more people died in the previous 10 years, so what are you concerned about?

Deceitful is when you claim that the imminent climate change is just part of a natural cycle, even though Blind Freddie can see that it isn't.

Deceit is when you try to say that all we're concerned about is the slight warming in the last 50 years and you try to pass it off as natural because there have been temperature changes of this magnitude in the past. Of course the rate of change was about 10,000 times slower, but you don't need to actually mention that point.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #36 - Dec 18^th, 2009 at 9:50pm

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 12:19pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 7:01pm:

muso wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 8:39am:

The weak will die- possibly as much as a billion people. It's sad, but it is going to happen regardless of how much money we waste on them.

Muso, you are talking like an apocalyptic nutter, like the General Turgidson of warmerists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgyjlqhiTV8

Mate,

It's your position that's looney tunes here, not mine. I'm not the one who is siding with a bunch of denialists who can't even agree on a single point, except business as usual.

Huh?
Denialists agree on every single point - thanks largely to there being only one point: AGW is craparooney.

Climate change? Mebbe.

AGW? Meh...

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #37 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 5:39am

Soren wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 9:50pm:

Huh?
Denialists agree on every single point - thanks largely to there being only one point: AGW is craparooney.

Climate change? Mebbe.

AGW? Meh...

Incorrect. Some believe that it's happening, but that it's totally beneficial. AGW is good for you - a bit like smoking. Steve Milloy and Bjorn Lomborg are examples.

Then there is the "Greening Earth Society". They loved it, and advocate V8's and live like there's no tomorrow. THey had some big names including such pseudoscientists as:

* Sallie Baliunas
* Robert C. Balling, Jr.
* Patrick J. Michaels
* Willie Soon
* Sylvan H. Wittwer, and
* David E. Wojick

If they think it's beneficial, and that they can contribute to it, they obviously must think it's happening, otherwise why bother thinking it's beneficial - eh?

So, thank you for smoking.

Ignorance is strength, comrade.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 19^th, 2009 at 5:46am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #38 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 5:33pm

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 2:29pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 10:47am:

Is the climate changing? Yes, it's always changing. There is no debate about this. The lazy shorthand of 'climate change' when 'man-made catastrophic climate cooling/warming' is meant is just that, lazy and stupid and/or deceitful.

Did 6 million people die during WWII? Yes, people have been dying for years. They have always been dying. Dying is quite natural. It was only a mere 0.25% of the global population. Many more people died in the previous 10 years, so what are you concerned about?

Deceitful is when you claim that the imminent climate change is just part of a natural cycle, even though Blind Freddie can see that it isn't.

Deceit is when you try to say that all we're concerned about is the slight warming in the last 50 years and you try to pass it off as natural because there have been temperature changes of this magnitude in the past. Of course the rate of change was about 10,000 times slower, but you don't need to actually mention that point.

I can see you are cherrypicking the logic - and hinting at me being deceitful. Very much the expected response.
I have outlined the picture for you, don't ignore it as if I was talking about WWII.

Or rather, ignore it.

Rate of warming - Greenland froze over pretty quickly. Whatever is happening now, it is not that quick.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 19^th, 2009 at 6:28pm by Soren »

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Great carbon con ......
Reply #39 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 7:57pm

Soren wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:48am:

Mr Musician, you don't even know what you are posting:

"From:

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction
of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:
Examination of criticisms based on the nature and
processing of proxy climate evidence"

So the Medieval Cold on the Northern Hemisphere was just 0.5 degree down on 'normal'?
No need to send nore clowns, we have as many as we can handle already; they have cornered the 'climate research on government grant' market and the 'communicating future doom' market, thank you very much.

I meant to say that it's a study of regional temperatures rather than global . It came out the other way around.

What's your point anyway? You think it should be more? - based on what data?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Senexx Full Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 101 Australia	Re: The Great carbon con ...... Reply #40 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 8:08pm Does it matter whether it is real or not? Most of the world is doing something about it, so isn't it politically savvy for us to do something about it as well?
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #41 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 8:08pm

Soren wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 5:33pm:

I can see you are cherrypicking the logic - and hinting at me being deceitful. Very much the expected response.
I have outlined the picture for you, don't ignore it as if I was talking about WWII.

Or rather, ignore it.

Rate of warming - Greenland froze over pretty quickly. Whatever is happening now, it is not that quick.

The example of WWII was intended to highlight the flawed logic in your statement. Just because climate has changed in the past does not imply that the recent rise in temperature is also natural.

It's like saying that the casualties of WWII died of a natural death where we know that they did not.

What are you talking about wrt Greenland? Are you trying to say that it was a land of milk and honey at the time of the Vikings and that the Greenland Icecap did not exist? Are you saying that Eric the Red and Leif Erikson swam in the balmy Labrador Sea then sunbaked on the beach ?

At what stage do you think that Greenland 'froze up' and what do you think the magnitude of this freeze might have been?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Great carbon con ......
Reply #42 - Dec 19^th, 2009 at 8:11pm

Senexx wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 8:08pm:

Does it matter whether it is real or not?
Most of the world is doing something about it, so isn't it politically savvy for us to do something about it as well?

In some respects I agree with you. It doesn't matter why we switch over to renewables as long as we do. However if we don't do it quickly enough, then it will still be a problem.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Emission Reduction Targets of developing economies
Reply #43 - Dec 20^th, 2009 at 4:38pm

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 8:08pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 5:33pm:

I can see you are cherrypicking the logic - and hinting at me being deceitful. Very much the expected response.
I have outlined the picture for you, don't ignore it as if I was talking about WWII.

Or rather, ignore it.

Rate of warming - Greenland froze over pretty quickly. Whatever is happening now, it is not that quick.

The example of WWII was intended to highlight the flawed logic in your statement. Just because climate has changed in the past does not imply that the recent rise in temperature is also natural.

It's like saying that the casualties of WWII died of a natural death where we know that they did not.

What are you talking about wrt Greenland? Are you trying to say that it was a land of milk and honey at the time of the Vikings and that the Greenland Icecap did not exist? Are you saying that Eric the Red and Leif Erikson swam in the balmy Labrador Sea then sunbaked on the beach ?

At what stage do you think that Greenland 'froze up' and what do you think the magnitude of this freeze might have been?

Well, lemme tell ya, if you went over there now and had naming right, you wouldn't call it Greenland. New Freezeland, more like it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The Great carbon con ...... Reply #44 - Dec 20^th, 2009 at 4:44pm muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 7:57pm: It came out the other way around. Yeah, right. Happens all the time with the warmerist crowd.
Back to top	IP Logged