Australian Politics Forum - Climate Change is back on

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #75 - Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:29pm

Rider wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:29pm:

Rider wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:11pm:

New Paper: No Increase in Tropical Cyclones Over Past 200 Years
Date: 01/03/13

The Hockey Schtick

A paper published today in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology reconstructs tropical cyclones in Queensland, Australia and finds that “tropical cyclone frequency did not increase in the past 200 years.”

The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications demonstrating that, contrary to the claims of climate alarmists, tropical cyclones have not increased, and in many cases have decreased due to warming, and are projected to further decrease in the future.

Reconstructing tropical cyclone frequency using hydrogen isotope ratios of sedimentary n-alkanes in northern Queensland, Australia
- See more at: http://www.thegwpf.org/paper-finds-increase-tropical-cyclones-200-years/#sthash.KoBMb9Cr.dpuf

Just something else for the warmist deniers to deny... Cheesy

it is just another of those peer-reviewed papers that MOTR says have not been published. and if it does admit to publication the next step is to claim the author is without validity, all of which is still vastly superior to rabbit-foods response which will be to say we are lying and no such report was ever produced,

Climate hysterics... ironically, they are actually climate DENIERS while those they call deniers are actually no more than SCEPTICS - a trait found in every scientific discipline other than climatology.

Exactly. I've just been ready about the global cooling scare of the '70's....same rhetoric, just a different bogey. Unbuggeringbelievable ar$ewipes, these so called scientists should be mopping up spilt cokes in Maccas ...

I suggest you do some more reading, as COOLING IS WHAT COMES AFTER PEAK WARMING, any look at our past will confirm that!

AND, sudden change is not only possible, it has already happened in the past. You would also do well to look at the influences of ocean currents, particularly the Atlantic current.

Back to top

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #76 - Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:36pm

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:22pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:16pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:13pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:36am:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:30am:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:00am:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 8:53am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 7:33am:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 8:23pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 6:45pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 6:33pm:

Tell that to all the businesses in the new Climate zones, in Queensland & northern NSW, as they become "uninsurable" over the next 5-10 years & they start screaming for governments to mitigate against the RISKS of them losing their Businesses, due to Climate Change.

And, even by then, it will probably be too late?

so the floods and cyclone has nothing to do with that?

Honestly Maqqa, there are some times, when I wonder what planet you come from!

The increased frequency & intensity of Floods & Cyclones in those areas, due to Climate Change, has everything to do with why those areas will find some insurances increasingly difficult to obtain!

except that it ISNT increased. it is not as bad as it has been in the past.
You do know that Australia is globally known as a continent either in drought or flood and rarely anything in between? none of these recent flood events are outside normal expectations.

Tell that to those people in Queensland & Northen NSW, who have been hit multiple times, recently & will be amongst the first to be hit by being "uninsurable" against those climate risks, that are most affecting their businesses & their very lives!!!

I doubt they will appreciate it!

What a opportunistic, shabby pile of horse nuggets!!!

Check out the Brisbane floods Feb 1893

Tell that to those people in Queensland & Northern NSW, who have been hit multiple times, recently & who will be amongst the first to be hit by being "uninsurable" against those climate risks, that are most affecting their businesses & their very lives!!!

And why is all that happening? Well, it's because of an increased frequency & intensity of Floods & Cyclones in those areas, due to Climate Change AND that governments (of all persuasions) have allowed, no they actually pushed massive Population growth, in areas that are prone to the sort of Climate Change events, that are now becoming more prevalent!

So, to all those who don't believe in Climate Change, continue with your beliefs, BUT I doubt those people who will be directly &/or indirectly affected by these events will appreciate the subtlety, as their Businesses & lives are being lost on events happening now, not over a century ago!

Finally, spare some thought for those people of Perth & the general South West of WA, who have now seen Climate Change first hand, for some forty years, as our rainfall has dried up & we now face our major sources of drinking water disappearing before our eyes, whilst Politicians (both Labor & liberal) STILL TALK OF ECONOMIC & POPULATION GROWTH!

Why would you tell people in QLD that they moved into a possible monsoon trough area and where there can be muliple cyclones per season.

It is up to the home buyers to determine the history of the area.

It is apparent that words such as -
Change
uninsurable
frequency
intensity
mean nothing to you, BUT I AM SURE THEY DO, TO THOSE PEOPLE AFFECTED, BY WHAT IS HAPPENING & WILL CONTINUE TO DEVELOP!

It is apparent you are a doomsdayer and have no clue on the history of weather or climate in that area.

No, it is simply a matter of understanding that reality happens!

As I have said previously, I spent over 40 years in the financial sector, mostly in general insurance AND THAT INDUSTRY IS BUILT ON THE FACT THAT SH!T HAPPENS!!

The insurance industry has a primary interest in "weather" Climate Change is real or not & I can tell you, THEY DO & THEY ARE ALREADY VOTING ECONOMICALLY WITH DRASTIC INCREASES TO COVER COSTS & IN SOME AREAS THEY ARE ALREADY DECLINING COVERS & IN SOME INSTANCES SIMPLY DECLINING TO INSURE IN CERTAIN AREAS.

Don't blame the climate for piss poor planning decisions. You let thousands build in the bush, wonderful, you institute "no burn"regimes, or drastically curtail burn offs and hazard reduction and ensure that you have catastrophic fires instead of more regular much more manageable cooler burns. You develop flood prone land and what do you know people get flooded. You even had a Council in Sydney in collusion with the state government develop land contaminated with radioactivity that did not find any need to tell purchasers of the risk and there are a host of other examples of the development of sites known to be contaminated. And what a surprise you used to sell insurance... Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #77 - Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:44pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:57am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 10:48am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 7:30am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 6:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 6:00pm:

the IPCC has said that there has been no warming in the past 17 years..

please show us the quote

You have been caught lying about this before.
You really shoiuld give up.

Show us evidence that the IPCC has said that there has been no warming in the past 17 years.
or apologise for telling lies.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 6:00pm:

I really dont care if you are too stupid, too pigheaded or too ignorant to accept it. It has happened. Everyone knows about it except you.

Show us evidence that the IPCC has said that there has been no warming in the past 17 years.
or apologise for telling lies.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 6:00pm:

time to move on.

Come on Liar - your move

Show us evidence that the IPCC has said that there has been no warming in the past 17 years.
or apologise for telling lies.

do you live in a hole, rabbit-food??? it was all over the news. look it up for yourself. even MOTR was reluctantly willing to accept that the IPCC said this.

No it wasn't liar.

You have already been proved wrong on this - yet you still lie about it.

If it were all "over the news" - you would have a reference to prove it.

Show us your reference that "the IPCC has said that there has been no warming in the past 17 years."

So far all you have shown us is a news story from The Australian that says the exact oposite of what you claim.

Come on liar - if it were ALL OVER THE NEWS - Show us your reference that "the IPCC has said that there has been no warming in the past 17 years."

We are waiting liar.

good grief drongo... it has been shown to you a dozen times so far and still you dont believe. you re now officially....

A CLIMATE DENIER

you are also a stupid fool who is incapable of reading.

Surprise surprise - the same old liar response!!!

it has been shown to you a dozen times so far

No it hasn't liar.

And if it has - you can easily show me one more time.
Why don't you do that liar?

We all know the answer dont we

Show us your reference that "the IPCC has said that there has been no warming in the past 17 years."

Still waiting liar.

You have shown us a newspaper report form the Australian that says the exact opposite of this. Now we are waiting for you to show us your reference that "the IPCC has said that there has been no warming in the past 17 years."

Stop running away liar.

Show us the reference.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #78 - Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:45pm

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:29pm:

Rider wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:29pm:

Rider wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:11pm:

New Paper: No Increase in Tropical Cyclones Over Past 200 Years
Date: 01/03/13

The Hockey Schtick

A paper published today in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology reconstructs tropical cyclones in Queensland, Australia and finds that “tropical cyclone frequency did not increase in the past 200 years.”

The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications demonstrating that, contrary to the claims of climate alarmists, tropical cyclones have not increased, and in many cases have decreased due to warming, and are projected to further decrease in the future.

Reconstructing tropical cyclone frequency using hydrogen isotope ratios of sedimentary n-alkanes in northern Queensland, Australia
- See more at: http://www.thegwpf.org/paper-finds-increase-tropical-cyclones-200-years/#sthash.KoBMb9Cr.dpuf

Just something else for the warmist deniers to deny... Cheesy

it is just another of those peer-reviewed papers that MOTR says have not been published. and if it does admit to publication the next step is to claim the author is without validity, all of which is still vastly superior to rabbit-foods response which will be to say we are lying and no such report was ever produced,

Climate hysterics... ironically, they are actually climate DENIERS while those they call deniers are actually no more than SCEPTICS - a trait found in every scientific discipline other than climatology.

Exactly. I've just been ready about the global cooling scare of the '70's....same rhetoric, just a different bogey. Unbuggeringbelievable ar$ewipes, these so called scientists should be mopping up spilt cokes in Maccas ...

I suggest you do some more reading, as COOLING IS WHAT COMES AFTER PEAK WARMING, any look at our past will confirm that!

AND, sudden change is not only possible, it has already happened in the past. You would also do well to look at the influences of ocean currents, particularly the Atlantic current.

More a case of a changing insurance industry than it is in any supposed man made climate change as there is nothing unusual historically in what is occuring in those regions.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:51pm by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #79 - Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:48pm

Maqqa wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 9:02pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 9:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 8:57pm:

If you want to question the dailymail that's up to you

They referenced it directly to the Met Off

NASA's confirmed it

IPCC confirmed it

Oh dear!!!! Big mouthful of lies there!!!

They referenced it directly to the Met Off
SHOW US

NASA's confirmed it
SHOW US

IPCC confirmed it
SHOW US

Show us evidence from the 3 organisations you have just slandered that they say that there has been "no warming for 17 years"

Show us - or apologise for telling lies.

You have been sucked in by a Daily Mail opinion piece.
And now you are telling lies.

Come on champ - prove me wrong

Sho us where the IPCC, NASA or the MET said there has been "no warming for 17 years"

You are that stupid that you can't read the reference Grin

I can't read any non-existant reference

You have claimed that the MET, NASA and the IPCC has all said there has been "no warming for 17 years".

Show us a reference for this.

I know you are lying.
You know you are lying (that is why you cannot show a reference)

We all know you are lying.

THere is no reference for your claims, is there.

But you decided to tell the lie anyway.

Do you really think you are fooling anyone?

Back to top

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #80 - Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:59pm

namnugenot wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:23pm:

Rider wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:56pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:30pm:

A even bigger steaming pile of horse nuggets...I live in northern NSW on a river so don't lecture me. And you still havn't answered my question how high the latest flood was or even the biggest recently for say Brisbane as my example of flood heights.... The absolute reason these floods have been so damaging is directly attributable in that part of the world to people being allowed to build well below even the 1974 flood contours and Wivenhoe dam being run exclusively as a water storage and not as was trumpeted when it was built as a flood mitigation dam. So this failure is one exclusively of planning not climate.

Each flood behaves differently as well, add human induced 'town planning' and we have what we see today.

Once apon a time houses in flood areas used to be significantly cheaper to buy, but because we are 'smarter' now people thought that didn't matter, well its a wake up call isn't it.

If i can just correct you a little re Wivenhoe - it works perfectly as a water supply, at 100% of its water supply limit it still has capacity to hold back an additional equivalent amount of water, ie. it holds 200% when the mitigation level is reached, and it did the other year....that was a case of human induced poor management in that a whole wet season (it started raining in Nov and didn't stop till Feb) was held back, a poor stategy of avoiding a low level flood which in turn meant a high level flood was ultimately inevitable.

Every one who lived in Brissy knows this, the water managers squirrelled out of it, but we know what happenned and why.

And yes, some property will be in the future, uninsurable, that is a simple fact, you might be able to insure, but it will be priced accordingly. Bad luck, that's why your property was cheaper than the one up on the hill.

I used to live in Brissie...but havn't since 87. I also remember them building Wivenhoe Dam post the 5.5 meter flood that was about 3 meters less than the one in 1841 and also much, much smaller that a couple of others a single month in 1893. If Wivenhoe was purely a flood mitigation dam then there may have been some excuse for developing flood prone land but it wasn't. Most of the people would have no real idea that the land they are building on is flood prone in the first place. My parents house was about 2 kilometers from the Brisbane River and was 2 stories and flooded level with the roof. Should another flood of the magnitude of those in the 1800's occur, and it will, then lots of people are going to die without a doubt and this is something that is known one hundred percent and totally avoidable but the "planners", government, etc have chosen to develop land and profit from it in those circumstances. Now those same people are telling me that they want to tax me (but not those overseas) because of "climate change" and that will "save" us...f'off, what a bunch of wankers.

Absolutely agree, spent the last 10yrs in Bris, a lot of folks have the 'Wivenhoe Syndrome', ie. no flood will ever affect Bris like pre Wivenhoe days...which is simply incorrect.

I'm sure the post Wivenhoe attitude has relaxed planning criteria, and we see more and more development in flood prone areas as you've said. A lot of extra damage is due to people building in under their existing and new highset Qlder style homes - they were meant to be clear underneath for a reason....which people now see. Hence higher costs to repair and consequently insure.

Having worked in property finance i can say that pre flood there was little or no difference in property prices for homes in flood areas as opposed to non flood, I think a lot of folks believed that no flood would ever be as high as '74. Prob they acknowledge that flooding would occur, but not to the same extent. I hope this is no longer the case, and that people are discounting the cost of flod prone housing by the cost of self insuring...I might be dreaming Roll Eyes

Just remember that Wivenhoe has no impact on the Bremer River system as it is below the dam, and as the 2011and the '74 floods were significantly impacted by these waters it is clear that post '74 built Wivenhoe can only mitigate at best. Oh, and without Wivenhoe as a water supply I'd hate to have lived in Brisbane for the past 10 years....seeing as Kevin Rudd had dustbinned the Wolfdene dam proposal when he was chief of staff for Goss.

And i agree, nothing abnormal about a wet season in a sub tropical location...the warming cause (cult) needs its 'useful idiots' and we seem to have 'em in spades.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #81 - Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 3:00pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:48pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 9:02pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 9:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 8:57pm:

If you want to question the dailymail that's up to you

They referenced it directly to the Met Off

NASA's confirmed it

IPCC confirmed it

Oh dear!!!! Big mouthful of lies there!!!

They referenced it directly to the Met Off
SHOW US

NASA's confirmed it
SHOW US

IPCC confirmed it
SHOW US

Show us evidence from the 3 organisations you have just slandered that they say that there has been "no warming for 17 years"

Show us - or apologise for telling lies.

You have been sucked in by a Daily Mail opinion piece.
And now you are telling lies.

Come on champ - prove me wrong

Sho us where the IPCC, NASA or the MET said there has been "no warming for 17 years"

You are that stupid that you can't read the reference Grin

I can't read any non-existant reference

You have claimed that the MET, NASA and the IPCC has all said there has been "no warming for 17 years".

Show us a reference for this.

I know you are lying.
You know you are lying (that is why you cannot show a reference)

We all know you are lying.

THere is no reference for your claims, is there.

But you decided to tell the lie anyway.

Do you really think you are fooling anyone?

read thru this thread, you stupid turd. it has been quoted several times plus there is an entire thread dedicated to it. IM not going to quote it AGAIN because you will simply say it isnt there AGAIN.

you are a serial liar and getting worse.

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

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #82 - Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 3:10pm

namnugenot wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:36pm:

Don't blame the climate for piss poor planning decisions. You let thousands build in the bush, wonderful, you institute "no burn"regimes, or drastically curtail burn offs and hazard reduction and ensure that you have catastrophic fires instead of more regular much more manageable cooler burns. You develop flood prone land and what do you know people get flooded. You even had a Council in Sydney in collusion with the state government develop land contaminated with radioactivity that did not find any need to tell purchasers of the risk and there are a host of other examples of the development of sites known to be contaminated. And what a surprise you used to sell insurance... Grin

1) You give ME far to much credit, I didn't do any of those things, except evaluate Risks & provide individuals & Businesses with appropriate advice on how best to mitigate against those Risks AND I WAS QUITE SUCCESSFUL IN DOING SO, BECAUSE THERE WERE A LOT OF INDIVIDUALS & BUSINESSES THAT TOOK MY ADVICE!

2) I have already said that the Politicians (Federal, State & Local) have provided very poor planning. In particular now, they are all still insistent on Population Growth & exponentia Growth, even in areas that are now obviously affected by Climate Change.

3) If you have No or inappropriate "burn off" regimes in your area, THEN You need to change that regime. In WA our Politicians may have actually gone too far the other way, by forcing burn offs to reach required levels, which have then actually caused bush fires because their forcing came at very inapprpriate times!

Back to top

IP Logged

olde.sault

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2913

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #83 - Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 3:30pm

adelcrow wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 2:19pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 2:15pm:

Quote:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/16275763/australia-breaks-hottest-sum...

The Bureau of Meteorology has confirmed that Australia has just experienced its hottest summer on record.

The bureau says the previous hottest summer - measured by average day and night figures from across the nation - was in 1997-98.

Sorry "righties" and "climate change deniers"

After 1 summer of hottest weather on average since 1998 and constant temperature for the last 17 years - climate change is back with a vengeance!!

Based on this 1 figure - lefties will tell you to build an Ark

Ohh yeah!!

The oceans are steadily heating which is the driver for the increasing extremes in weather conditions that we have seen over the last decade.
Believe what you want Maqqa but even the Coalition have an ETS still on the books and have promised to reduce greenhouse gases at the same rate as the Labor Party.

Trust me, if the oceans and deserts are heating, it is not for what humans do--

Fortunately, deep oceans and deserts still take up more of the world's space than we. We emit only 3% of carbon DIOXIDE that is not even recorded as a pollutant.

Stop harping on a falsehood!

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #84 - Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 3:39pm

olde.sault wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 3:30pm:

Trust me, if the oceans and deserts are heating, it is not for what humans do--

No - I don't think I will trust an idiot.

It is very clear that anthropogenic emissions are causing the planet to warm. To deny this is simply stupid.

olde.sault wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 3:30pm:

Fortunately, deep oceans and deserts still take up more of the world's space than we. We emit only 3% of carbon DIOXIDE that is not even recorded as a pollutant.

Anthropogenic emissions have caused atmospheric CO2 levels to increase from roughly 300ppm to 400ppm over the past century or so. This si a very significant increase.

And CO2 is a pollutant. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are having a negative impact on society an ecosystems by impacting upon global climate. This is why it is a pollutant.

Back to top

IP Logged

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: Climate Change is back on Reply #85 - Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 5:31pm So..why do you bleeding heart Greenies think that treating the Earths atmosphere as an open sewer for well over 100 yrs would cause any problems? We know from our pristine land, oceans and rivers that we can dump any amount of pollution into them without ever noticing it..bloody tree huggers
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #86 - Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 5:32pm

adelcrow wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 5:31pm:

So..why do you bleeding heart Greenies think that treating the Earths atmosphere as an open sewer for well over 100 yrs would cause any problems?
We know from our pristine land, oceans and rivers that we can dump any amount of pollution into them without ever noticing it..bloody tree huggers Cheesy

Agree. That's why this weekend, as just a bit of fun we're going out and chopping down trees! It's the Tree Chopping Party!! With XXXX!

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #87 - Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 5:44pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 3:00pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:48pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 9:02pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 9:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 8:57pm:

If you want to question the dailymail that's up to you

They referenced it directly to the Met Off

NASA's confirmed it

IPCC confirmed it

Oh dear!!!! Big mouthful of lies there!!!

They referenced it directly to the Met Off
SHOW US

NASA's confirmed it
SHOW US

IPCC confirmed it
SHOW US

Show us evidence from the 3 organisations you have just slandered that they say that there has been "no warming for 17 years"

Show us - or apologise for telling lies.

You have been sucked in by a Daily Mail opinion piece.
And now you are telling lies.

Come on champ - prove me wrong

Sho us where the IPCC, NASA or the MET said there has been "no warming for 17 years"

You are that stupid that you can't read the reference Grin

I can't read any non-existant reference

You have claimed that the MET, NASA and the IPCC has all said there has been "no warming for 17 years".

Show us a reference for this.

I know you are lying.
You know you are lying (that is why you cannot show a reference)

We all know you are lying.

THere is no reference for your claims, is there.

But you decided to tell the lie anyway.

Do you really think you are fooling anyone?

read thru this thread, you stupid turd. it has been quoted several times plus there is an entire thread dedicated to it. IM not going to quote it AGAIN because you will simply say it isnt there AGAIN.

you are a serial liar and getting worse.

Show us where the IPCC, NASA or the MET said there has been "no warming for 17 years"

Come on liar. If it "has been quoted several times plus there is an entire thread dedicated to it."

It should be a simple matter to cut and paste and show us all where the IPCC, NASA or the MET said there has been "no warming for 17 years"

Why can't you show us?

A simple cut and paste to show us you are not a liar

Show us all where the IPCC, NASA or the MET said there has been "no warming for 17 years"

Why can't you do it?

We both know the answer - don't we.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #88 - Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:10pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 3:50pm:

ONE above average temperature summer is proof of ACC but the 3 previous years of BELOW average temperatures proved...

that climate science cherry picks data.

If you are under 27 you are yet to experience a below average summer.

This was the hottest summer on record. But what makes it more exceptional is that it was not an El Niño year.

Quote:

"So the fact that we've got such a hot summer without having an El Nino makes it in some ways even more exceptional."

Penny Whetton, a senior climate research scientist with the CSIRO, says the fact that it was not an El Nino year is significant.

"It just underlines that it's much easier, so to speak, for the climate to give us a hot year than what it used to be in the past," she said.

"It really just shows that the potential for us to get really warm conditions has increased.

"The effect of that is that we can get very warm years now without one of the factors that can contribute to warmth being in place, and that is El Nino conditions. I think that is actually quite significant. "

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

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change is back on
Reply #89 - Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 5:24am

If you are under 27 you are yet to experience a below average summer.

This was the hottest summer on record. But what makes it more exceptional is that it was not an El Niño year.

Meaningless statistic, and so what?

For a refreshing change, pop over to

JoNova

and read a thoughtful deconstruct of the BOM's panic headline.

The BOM's job is done, they've inserted a headline into the empty heads of the useful idiots who now spread the word as per above.

When the useful idiots can provide empirical evidence that man made co2 will create the levels of feedbacks required by the climate models in order to induce catestrophic man made global warming it will indeed be a cold day in hell.

Seeing as records show co2 rises occur after warming periods it seems to fail even the common sense rule doesn't it Grin

Back to top

IP Logged