Australian Politics Forum - Climate change nuts

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Climate change nuts Reply #75 - Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:39pm Have you read Scafetta? It is not a trick question. This may be a political forum but there is no need to avoid the question.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate change nuts
Reply #76 - Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:49pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:39pm:

Have you read Scafetta? It is not a trick question. This may be a political forum but there is no need to avoid the question.

You have the floor. You know what you want to say, so say it. I am obviously not answering your question as I see an answer busting to vome out of your mouth/keyboard. Dont be afraid. Just say it. You know you want to. After all, skepticalscience told you.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30923
Gender: male

Re: Climate change nuts
Reply #77 - Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:39am

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:25pm:

Gist wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:14pm:

Sooo... basically you agree the AGW proponents are 100% right but you just don't like the way they say what they say. Kind of a shallow argument to bang on with isn't it?

Absolutely not. I'm sceptical of the AGW "science". Always have been.

There is no "100% right". That's not how science works.

However, I have an open-mind and therefore I realise that there is still a possibility (albeit a small one) that the AGW hypothesis may have some credibility.

Therefore, seeing as I acknowledge that there is a slim chance that humans may be contributing to climate change, I have no problem with insurance schemes such as reductions in carbon emissions.

It is possible you know, to be sceptical of the AGW hypothesis yet not be in opposition of carbon reduction schemes. Some of us are open-minded. AGW disciples, not so much. Undecided

The solution for you is to vote liberal then you will always have the right company around you telling you what you want to hear Cheesy

LOL

Back to top

"If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region..." - Benjamin Netanyahu in 1995

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate change nuts
Reply #78 - Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 6:46am

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:49pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:39pm:

Have you read Scafetta? It is not a trick question. This may be a political forum but there is no need to avoid the question.

You have the floor. You know what you want to say, so say it. I am obviously not answering your question as I see an answer busting to vome out of your mouth/keyboard. Dont be afraid. Just say it. You know you want to. After all, skepticalscience told you.

Say what, progs? http://www.skepticalscience.com/ informs my understanding of climate science. Yes it does. As I've said before I can't recommend it highly enough, particularly the discussion that occurs at the end of each entry.

As for Scafetta, skepticalscience have yet to look at his most recent work, though I'm hoping they will. Progs, you are the one who has jumped on Scafetta's work because he claims that 60% of the warming can be explained by a natural variation. There are massive problems with Scafetta's work outside his inability to describe the physical mechanism behind his theory. His latest work assumes that the distribution of solar cycle lengths is bimodal, yet he doesn't even use the most basic statistical test to demonstrate that the data does not belong to a normal distribution.

Now do you want to discuss either of these points or is Watt's tick of approval good enough for you?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 6:54am by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate change nuts
Reply #79 - Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:30pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 6:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:49pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:39pm:

Have you read Scafetta? It is not a trick question. This may be a political forum but there is no need to avoid the question.

You have the floor. You know what you want to say, so say it. I am obviously not answering your question as I see an answer busting to vome out of your mouth/keyboard. Dont be afraid. Just say it. You know you want to. After all, skepticalscience told you.

Say what, progs? http://www.skepticalscience.com/ informs my understanding of climate science. Yes it does. As I've said before I can't recommend it highly enough, particularly the discussion that occurs at the end of each entry.

As for Scafetta, skepticalscience have yet to look at his most recent work, though I'm hoping they will. Progs, you are the one who has jumped on Scafetta's work because he claims that 60% of the warming can be explained by a natural variation. There are massive problems with Scafetta's work outside his inability to describe the physical mechanism behind his theory. His latest work assumes that the distribution of solar cycle lengths is bimodal, yet he doesn't even use the most basic statistical test to demonstrate that the data does not belong to a normal distribution.

Now do you want to discuss either of these points or is Watt's tick of approval good enough for you?

I am not too fussed to talk with the attitude you have that your information is better than mine or what you read is somehow more worthy.

You go on about Anthony Watts, but what I just read from his site is not exactly an endorsement of Scafetta. It would seem that he was skeptical of his paper and the peer reviewers.

Going by what you scream, you make out like Anthony Watts would or has taken Scafetta at face value and ran with it.

Poor form from you really. I suggest you take the information you get and just bring it. I bring mine. Instead of being a punce and suggesting the BS you have been suggesting about your information being the be all and end all.

BTW I am not too bad at math and have used a bit of bimodal in some predictive betting programming that is ongoing.

The WUWT link to Scafetta work.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/21/scafettas-new-paper-attempts-to-link-clima...

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:58pm by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

Uncle Meat Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2434 Tasmania Gender:	Re: Climate change nuts Reply #80 - Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:36pm progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:30pm: BTW I am not too bad at math ... "maths", please. This is Australian Politics.
Back to top	IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Climate change nuts Reply #81 - Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:54pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:36pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:30pm: BTW I am not too bad at math ... "maths", please. This is Australian Politics. I didn't guarantee/suggest spelling or grammar
Back to top	IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate change nuts
Reply #82 - Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 9:02pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:30pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 6:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:49pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:39pm:

Have you read Scafetta? It is not a trick question. This may be a political forum but there is no need to avoid the question.

You have the floor. You know what you want to say, so say it. I am obviously not answering your question as I see an answer busting to vome out of your mouth/keyboard. Dont be afraid. Just say it. You know you want to. After all, skepticalscience told you.

Say what, progs? http://www.skepticalscience.com/ informs my understanding of climate science. Yes it does. As I've said before I can't recommend it highly enough, particularly the discussion that occurs at the end of each entry.

As for Scafetta, skepticalscience have yet to look at his most recent work, though I'm hoping they will. Progs, you are the one who has jumped on Scafetta's work because he claims that 60% of the warming can be explained by a natural variation. There are massive problems with Scafetta's work outside his inability to describe the physical mechanism behind his theory. His latest work assumes that the distribution of solar cycle lengths is bimodal, yet he doesn't even use the most basic statistical test to demonstrate that the data does not belong to a normal distribution.

Now do you want to discuss either of these points or is Watt's tick of approval good enough for you?

I am not too fussed to talk with the attitude you have that your information is better than mine or what you read is somehow more worthy.

You go on about Anthony Watts, but what I just read from his site is not exactly an endorsement of Scafetta. It would seem that he was skeptical of his paper and the peer reviewers.

Going by what you scream, you make out like Anthony Watts would or has taken Scafetta at face value and ran with it.

Poor form from you really. I suggest you take the information you get and just bring it. I bring mine. Instead of being a punce and suggesting the BS you have been suggesting about your information being the be all and end all.

BTW I am not too bad at math and have used a bit of bimodal in some predictive betting programming that is ongoing.

The WUWT link to Scafetta work.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/21/scafettas-new-paper-attempts-to-link-clima...

Isn't that exactly what you did.

progressiveslol wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

Since natural variations account for 60% of the recent warming, how much of the 40% left was from CO2 amoungst many other reasons. Of the 100%, what was the warming and what was 40% of that and what was CO2 out of many factors.

Ill tell you. STUFF ALL.

http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/5835-nicola-scafetta-the-theory-is-very-simpl...

Nicola Scafetta is a scientist at Duke University and at the Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab which is associated with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. He claims that "at least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system.” As his theory is controversial, we asked him to outline it. For the near future he predicts a stabilisation of global temperature or cooling until 2030-2040.

You've taken Scafetta's conclusion and ran with it as fact, without first looking at the science.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 9:07pm by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate change nuts
Reply #83 - Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 9:07pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 9:02pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:30pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 6:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:49pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:39pm:

Have you read Scafetta? It is not a trick question. This may be a political forum but there is no need to avoid the question.

You have the floor. You know what you want to say, so say it. I am obviously not answering your question as I see an answer busting to vome out of your mouth/keyboard. Dont be afraid. Just say it. You know you want to. After all, skepticalscience told you.

Say what, progs? http://www.skepticalscience.com/ informs my understanding of climate science. Yes it does. As I've said before I can't recommend it highly enough, particularly the discussion that occurs at the end of each entry.

As for Scafetta, skepticalscience have yet to look at his most recent work, though I'm hoping they will. Progs, you are the one who has jumped on Scafetta's work because he claims that 60% of the warming can be explained by a natural variation. There are massive problems with Scafetta's work outside his inability to describe the physical mechanism behind his theory. His latest work assumes that the distribution of solar cycle lengths is bimodal, yet he doesn't even use the most basic statistical test to demonstrate that the data does not belong to a normal distribution.

Now do you want to discuss either of these points or is Watt's tick of approval good enough for you?

I am not too fussed to talk with the attitude you have that your information is better than mine or what you read is somehow more worthy.

You go on about Anthony Watts, but what I just read from his site is not exactly an endorsement of Scafetta. It would seem that he was skeptical of his paper and the peer reviewers.

Going by what you scream, you make out like Anthony Watts would or has taken Scafetta at face value and ran with it.

Poor form from you really. I suggest you take the information you get and just bring it. I bring mine. Instead of being a punce and suggesting the BS you have been suggesting about your information being the be all and end all.

BTW I am not too bad at math and have used a bit of bimodal in some predictive betting programming that is ongoing.

The WUWT link to Scafetta work.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/21/scafettas-new-paper-attempts-to-link-clima...

Isn't that exactly what you did.

progressiveslol wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

Since natural variations account for 60% of the recent warming, how much of the 40% left was from CO2 amoungst many other reasons. Of the 100%, what was the warming and what was 40% of that and what was CO2 out of many factors.

Ill tell you. STUFF ALL.

http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/5835-nicola-scafetta-the-theory-is-very-simpl...

Nicola Scafetta is a scientist at Duke University and at the Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab which is associated with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. He claims that "at least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system.” As his theory is controversial, we asked him to outline it. For the near future he predicts a stabilisation of global temperature or cooling until 2030-2040.

Me, then why are you suggesting Anthony Watts did. Am I somehow Anthony Watts now?

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Climate change nuts Reply #84 - Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 9:20pm No, I'm suggesting you are prepared to propogate whatever you find there without putting much thought into it.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Climate change nuts Reply #85 - Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 9:26pm MOTR wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 9:20pm: No, I'm suggesting you are prepared to propogate whatever you find there without putting much thought into it. It is to put it out there. The thought that goes into it is always up to the receiver of the information.
Back to top	IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate change nuts
Reply #86 - Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 5:24am

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 9:26pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 9:20pm:

No, I'm suggesting you are prepared to propogate whatever you find there without putting much thought into it.

It is to put it out there. The thought that goes into it is always up to the receiver of the information.

Well, I've put some thought into it, and Scafetta's work resembles little more than a curve fitting exercise with some Astrology thrown in for good measure.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate change nuts
Reply #87 - Jun 4^th, 2012 at 6:50am

If someone wants to see the climate change nuts in action. Look no further than AGW god nut himself.

Hansen and GISS team, in year 2000
, wrote this

A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.long

Which of course, is in complete contrast of what they would go onto say just years later. lol I guess money does strange thing to climate sclientists.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Climate change nuts Reply #88 - Jun 4^th, 2012 at 4:52pm Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:36pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:30pm: BTW I am not too bad at math ... "maths", please. This is Australian Politics. [color=#ff000[[font=Georgi a]b]0]hOW'S IT GOING PRETEND FENCE-SITTER? GOT ANY SLEEP LATELY??? [/font][/b][/color]
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Climate change nuts
Reply #89 - Jun 4^th, 2012 at 4:56pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 9:20pm:

No, I'm suggesting you are prepared to propogate whatever you find there without putting much thought into it.

UNCLE MEAT IS TRYING TO CHEW UP THE WORLDS ENTIRE INTERNET ADRESS SPACE!

THAT IS HONESTLY THE STRATAGEM BEHIND THESE GUYS!!

(... UNTIL THE DAY BIG BUSINESS DECIDES IT HAS WORKED OUT AND RIGGED THE NEW SYSTEM OF DOING THINGS THAT IS!!

)

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged