Australian Politics Forum - Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?

chicken_lipsforme

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #285 - May 18^th, 2011 at 7:30am

astro_surf wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 9:27am:

astro_surf wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 8:34am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17^th, 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.

Back to top

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #286 - May 18^th, 2011 at 8:34am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 18^th, 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.

Back to top

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery? Reply #287 - May 18^th, 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.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

chicken_lipsforme

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #288 - May 18^th, 2011 at 9:32am

astro_surf wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 8:34am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 18^th, 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?

Back to top

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #289 - May 18^th, 2011 at 10:23am

astro_surf wrote on May 17^th, 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.

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 18^th, 2011 at 11:01am by Soren »

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #290 - May 18^th, 2011 at 10:37am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 7:07am:

perceptions_now wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 2:42pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 1:49pm:

I post the following here because it is applicable to this discussion.

perceptions_now wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Soren wrote on May 17^th, 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-quee...

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-...

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!

Back to top

IP Logged

Flying Binghi

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 252
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #291 - May 18^th, 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"... Roll Eyes

(sarc) Geothermal.... Hmmm.. stake the countrys future on it ah would.. Roll Eyes

.

Back to top

IP Logged

chicken_lipsforme

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #292 - May 18^th, 2011 at 11:09am

Soren wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 10:23am:

astro_surf wrote on May 17^th, 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.

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. Cheesy

.

Back to top

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #293 - May 18^th, 2011 at 11:18am

astro_surf wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 8:34am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 18^th, 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 61786 Here Gender:	Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery? Reply #294 - May 18^th, 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23818 Carlsbad, CA Gender:	Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery? Reply #295 - May 18^th, 2011 at 11:43am Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 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/
Back to top	Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61786
Here
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #296 - May 18^th, 2011 at 11:50am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:43am:

Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #297 - May 18^th, 2011 at 7:02pm

creep wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 5:45am:

And for the gullible gerties out there

Here's a global warmist Professor in Physics Richard Muller

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-sci...

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.

Back to top

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #298 - May 18^th, 2011 at 7:11pm

Soren wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:18am:

astro_surf wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 8:34am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 18^th, 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'

Back to top

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Should Abbott apologise to Flannery?
Reply #299 - May 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm

Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:50am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 11:43am:

Dnarever wrote on May 18^th, 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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged