Sorry.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 3:03pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 3:06pm:


forgiven .

in love and the divine light

namaste

- : ) =


ॐ
/

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 3:03pm:


Cuckoo!
Cuckoo!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 3:03pm:


Sorry, Deathridesacarbonemission.

Interestingly its the ppl that like to call others conspiracy theorists that think this whole climate thing is a conspiracy theory? To what end?

SOB

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 18^th, 2014 at 2:38am:


You can tell your friends that Global Warming is a GOOD thing, while Global Cooling is a BAD thing.

That's the Good News for today, D. 

Warming = Good.

Cooling =  Bad!

The mini-Ice Age that ended in the 1800s killed millions across Europe, but a mini-Warming Period would have killed no one.

Yes WG1 said the models were unreliable over the short term. Warming was roughly equivalent to the RCP 2.6 or 2.6 w/m2 increase by 2100..

WG2 and WG3 appear to have used RCP 8.5 or an increase to 8.5 w/m2 within the same time frame.

'Box TS.6 | The New Representative Concentration Pathway Scenarios and Coupled Model Intercomparison
Project Phase 5 Models
Future anthropogenic emissions of GHGs, aerosol particles and other forcing agents such as land use change are dependent on socio
-
economic factors, and may be affected by global geopolitical agreements to control those emissions to achieve mitigation. AR4 made
extensive use of the SRES scenarios that do not include additional climate initiatives, which means that no scenarios were available
that explicitly assume implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the emissions
targets of the Kyoto Protocol. However, GHG emissions are directly affected by non-climate change policies designed for a wide range
of other purposes. The SRES scenarios were developed using a sequential approach, that is, socioeconomic factors fed into emissions
scenarios, which were then used in simple climate models to determine concentrations of GHGs, and other agents required to drive the
more complex AOGCMs. In this report, outcomes of climate simulations that use new scenarios (some of which include implied policy
actions to achieve mitigation) referred to as RCPs are assessed. These RCPs represent a larger set of mitigation scenarios and were
selected to have different targets in terms of radiative forcing at 2100 (about 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 W m
–2
; Figure TS.15). The scenarios
should be considered plausible and illustrative, and do not have probabilities attached to them. {12.3.1; Box 1.1} (bold added)

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 18^th, 2014 at 6:11am:

Ha, yeh only so much fun ya can have there before you just wish prevention had been attempted by the hollywood induced sociopaths of our generations!!

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 18^th, 2014 at 6:36am:


Three words that might prove you wrong Herbert.

North Atlantic Drift.

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/09/14/life-on-this-earth-just-changed-the-no...

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 18^th, 2014 at 4:38pm:


Cuckoo!!!!

Adamant wrote on Apr 18^th, 2014 at 2:40pm:


Wrong.

Prefrontal Cortex Drift. That's where the real problem lies.

muso wrote on Apr 18^th, 2014 at 7:26pm:

A SWOT analysis of what exactly?

Determining the question is politics... Science may be a tool for finding answers but it too has to determine the question to be answered in the first!

All human relations is politics!!   

muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2014 at 9:38am:

That's not the question that needs answering in my book... in my book it's how we get off the fossil fooled train pronto!

Boycott has been called for and body, mind and soul of the masses can do it if they only used the sword of wisdom to cut the Hollywood hallucination in half. WHO ASKS WHY THEY HAD KIDS??

CERTAINLY NOT THE GREEDY BABY BOOMERS WHOM 9-11 ATTACKED!

The depressant drug alcohol makes them all hide their heads in shame...

GO BABY BOOMERS YEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

OH YEH, THEY HAD IT ALL WORKED OUT........ 

muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

Ahuh, yeh I don't know much about that sword but I'll go with your decision making process idea for now.

Certainly, decision is difficult.

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt aka FUD are easily spread. Easily spread for good reason as decision is like the release of an arrow- very hard to undo!

What I do know is that nature has made up its mind that what will not defend itself will not be defended!

I question the sword of Damocles ... But I may just do some reading around it to be sure 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 19^th, 2014 at 11:32am:


Death, you do realise that the whole evnvironmental movement of the 60s and 70s was started BY baby boomers, don't you?

And that a lot of the 'big' names in the pro-ACC world are also boomers? Bob Brown, Christine Milne, Tim Flannery, Mike Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, even Al Gore. All Baby Boomers.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 20^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:


Can you try that again in english??

I DEMAND a total refund of all the taxpayers money blown on a totally irrelevant cause and the nonsense created to justify fraudulent and patently false climate modelling.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 11:35am:


As I said...patently false.