rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2014 at 12:27pm:


Elders is more up to date, it is half way through 2014 you know...

Anyway, the SOI is in positive and that's a good thing. Been in + territory for the last 6 readings. The last 2 reading higher than the 3rd last.

Let's hope it stays there.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2014 at 12:15pm:


95% confidence in human caused climate change is significant.  Science of every kind is never settled.

While it's a fact that the population is aging, how to deal with it is most certainly up for debate.

My issue with your initial statement is you are implying that science is highly uncertain about current climate change, and that is simply not the case.

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2014 at 12:33pm:

I gave you the BOM data to May 2014.  It is exactly the same data you will get from Elders.

SOI is essentially neutral at the moment - varying between slightly positive and slightly negative.

However, as quoted for you earlier, The tropical Pacific Ocean continues a general trend toward El Niño, with just over half of the climate models surveyed by the Bureau suggesting El Niño thresholds will be exceeded by August

El Nino is coming.  Probably sooner than later.

Continued on from the Climate scientist in congress

1. I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.

2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.

3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.

4. IS CLIMATE CHANGE VERY UNUSUAL? No, it has always undergone changes.

5. ARE GREENHOUSE GASES INCREASING? Yes, CO2 rapidly.

6. IS THERE GOOD SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE? Yes, a great deal of it.

7. ARE THERE GOOD SCIENTISTS INVOLVED IN THE IPCC 2014 REPORT? Yes, the lead author of the Terrestrial (land) Ecosystem Report is Richard Betts, a coauthor of one my scientific papers about forecasting effects of global warming on biodiversity.

8. ARE THERE SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE STATEMENTS AT PLACES IN THE REPORT? Yes, there are.

9. What I sought to learn was the overall take-away that the reports leave with a reader. I regret to say that I was left with the impression that the reports overestimate the danger from human-induced climate change and do not contribute to our ability to solve major environmental problems. I am afraid that an “agenda” permeates the reports, an implication that humans and our activity are necessarily bad and ought to be curtailed.

10. ARE THERE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTS? Yes, in assumptions, use of data, and conclusions.

11. My biggest concern about the reports is that they present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports, in other words, are “scientific- sounding,” rather than clearly settled and based on indisputable facts. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.

12. The two reports assume and/or argue that the climate warming forecast by the global climate models is happening and will continue to happen and grow worse. Currently these predictions are way off the reality (Figure 1). Models, like all scientific theory, have to be tested against real-world observations. Experts in model validation say that the climate models frequently cited in the IPCC report are little if any validated. This means that as theory they are fundamentally scientifically unproven.

continue on at web site
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/31/in-house-testimony-botkin-dismantles-the-i...

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2014 at 12:33pm:



Why do you keep saying it's a conspiracy?

I haven't seen any skeptics on here say that it's a conspiracy.

Your very limited range of options - AGW is real or it's a conspiracy -  seems to suggest a very narrow-minded approach.

lee wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2014 at 2:57pm:

the temperature data manipulators, homoginisors have been fighting hard to keep the temperature data flat even more so since the time between super el nino has gone sinse 98. They will find it harder to digusise their fraud as the el nino will be weak for some time and not create the great step

.

Political scum and their political parties

are paid by the 'climate change' architects

Paid to spout nonsense


Idiots follow scum political parties

except the rank and file idiots are NOT being paid -- at least no more than 20 cents per post

to spout bullspit 'climate change' rubbish


These are people with closed minds

First, they wanted to believe the world was going to end in 2012

No --- first they thought it was going to end in 2000!

Now they want to believe 'climate change' is going to end the world


These people are part of a death-cult, except they don't know it and/or won't accept that about themselves


Gloom and doom, gloom and doom

They want to elevate every nutjob minority to prominence and support those minorities on the backs of the majority

So they champion every minority that raises its head


These death-cut, 'climate change' propagandists have NEVER acquainted themselves with science or history

they're half-witted tools of the Gores of the world who can TASTE all that 'climate change' profit in their pockets

They will NOT let go of their dream of becoming even more obscenely rich than they are now

and all the nincompoops in fake parties chant along, doing the leg-work, filling acres of bandwidth with their phony-baloney 'climate change' fiddled rubbish


Tell you what, all you 'green' pretenders


why don't you ask Milne -- and hanson young too if you like --- whether or not they've had reverse osmosis fitted throughout their homes

to filter their water of fluoride

even their showers



Go on.  Find out.  They didn't install it on their own.  Workers had to do that

so go find out


Then prove to this forum that you are conversant with Chemtrails

Prove you've viewed the videos and photos and skies above your heads

and EXPLAIN those Chemtrails to this and any other forum you infest



Then justify Chemtrails.  That will take you a LONG time


When you CANNOT justify Chemtrails --- tell this forum what they're for, what they're achieving


Because by the time you've done that


you will no longer waffle on about 'climate change'


and you will KNOW that fake 'climate change' is being orchestrated and engineered VIA Chemtrails

for profit


And then you'll do one of two things:

(1) you will shut up about fake 'climate change' and campaign like maniacs against Chemtrails


or


(2) you will go down to the back paddock and shoot yourselves

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2014 at 3:37pm:



Gizmo, you have two choices before you:

(1) you admit (because it's already known) that you're just a post for hire

or

(2) you're a wilful idiot


choice is yours

Personally, I feel both apply




Now get yourself off to Youtube where you'll find THOUSANDS of videos of Chemtrails


You can get yourself off to half a million alternative news forums and read in depth scientific analysis of Chemtrail components


You can step outside your door and see Chemtrails from horizon to horizon


THEN you can try to justify the expenditure of millions of dollars per day of OUR money on Chemtrails

it's OUR money !

OUR money being spent on the clouding and poisoning of skies, water, food


OUR money paying pilots to dump the stuff over every dam, every town and city in this land (and all other lands)


You can go to mainstream news and read how people in OTHER countries actually get out there and protest at airports, outside government offices, etc, re Chemtrails

You can read how Chemtrails actually killed Italians outright

You can go read about Morgellons

You can go to gardening forums in almost any country to see how even ordinary household gardens are withering and dying because of Chemtrails


It's all out there Gizmo --- on the world wide web


Even grandparents know about Chemtrails these days

and you're little johnny all alone, claiming the entire world is out of step apart from little old you


give it up