Australian Politics Forum - Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #30 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:03pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 7:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:19pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:55pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

So why the angst? This poor man had differing views on how to deal with it. Yep, that is all. Apparently, doctrinal differences don’t just split churches.

So in the end, which is true? Catastrophe or just more of the same?

The fact is the science isn’t in. It certainly isn’t settled. In the meantime, climate continues to do what it has always done for millennia – oscillate around a mean and defy all efforts to predict or control.

In around twenty or thirty years, there will be no Climate Catastrophe proponents left – other than in IPCC funded bunkers. Even hysterical overreaction has a tipping point. And that particular tipping point is imminent.

Reprinted with permission

What was the source?

'The Long Weekend'

One could tell given it's the same ignorance trying to be prettied up. A pig will always remain a pig.

well at least you are not saying it was plagiarised so thatputs you a level above Aussie and Karnal, so thanks.

Well informed opinion writers don't try to spread misinformation after being shown it to be so. Hence it must be you who wrote this junk Wink

and we all know what comes next from you, right? a line-by-line refutation of the claims..

yeah right. You will just say it is wrong and not even bother to identify which parts, nevermind refute it.

it's been done over and over and over for you, and still you come up with opinions that use debunked claims in such an authoritative way as if they were facts.

There's no point discussing with a person who ignores what is being discussed. Best thing to do is simply laugh at you.

then list your 'debunked claims'. I went out of my way to only use peer-reviewed results and those that are accepted by virtually all eg the 18 year pause and the fake concensus argument.

so back to you (as if)

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #31 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:05pm

Bam wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 7:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:55pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

So why the angst? This poor man had differing views on how to deal with it. Yep, that is all. Apparently, doctrinal differences don’t just split churches.

So in the end, which is true? Catastrophe or just more of the same?

The fact is the science isn’t in. It certainly isn’t settled. In the meantime, climate continues to do what it has always done for millennia – oscillate around a mean and defy all efforts to predict or control.

In around twenty or thirty years, there will be no Climate Catastrophe proponents left – other than in IPCC funded bunkers. Even hysterical overreaction has a tipping point. And that particular tipping point is imminent.

Reprinted with permission

What was the source?

'The Long Weekend'

Possible. Lots of waffle with not one citation anywhere for the "facts". Provision of citations is not something that wrongy's known to do, ever.

and no refutations from you either. What citations do you need? the 18year pause that is accepted by everyone and documented in a million places? Or is it the consensus claim that has been well publicised globally. Or perhaps you need proof the Al Gore move as even made.

Do you read articles in newspapers with citations? do you need to have proved to you that the earth is round or do you stipulate to it? then how about engaging that big brain you claim to have, dig thru some memories and accept the facts that are globally NOT INDISPUTE and move on.

no refutations proves my point.

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

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con? Reply #32 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:07pm ten threads on this topic and prozac_now moves just this one to the never-spotted dark back closet of the forum. NEver trust a drug-dependant clown like him.
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

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #33 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:14pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 7:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:19pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:55pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

So why the angst? This poor man had differing views on how to deal with it. Yep, that is all. Apparently, doctrinal differences don’t just split churches.

So in the end, which is true? Catastrophe or just more of the same?

The fact is the science isn’t in. It certainly isn’t settled. In the meantime, climate continues to do what it has always done for millennia – oscillate around a mean and defy all efforts to predict or control.

In around twenty or thirty years, there will be no Climate Catastrophe proponents left – other than in IPCC funded bunkers. Even hysterical overreaction has a tipping point. And that particular tipping point is imminent.

Reprinted with permission

What was the source?

'The Long Weekend'

One could tell given it's the same ignorance trying to be prettied up. A pig will always remain a pig.

well at least you are not saying it was plagiarised so thatputs you a level above Aussie and Karnal, so thanks.

Well informed opinion writers don't try to spread misinformation after being shown it to be so. Hence it must be you who wrote this junk Wink

and we all know what comes next from you, right? a line-by-line refutation of the claims..

yeah right. You will just say it is wrong and not even bother to identify which parts, nevermind refute it.

it's been done over and over and over for you, and still you come up with opinions that use debunked claims in such an authoritative way as if they were facts.

There's no point discussing with a person who ignores what is being discussed. Best thing to do is simply laugh at you.

then list your 'debunked claims'. I went out of my way to only use peer-reviewed results and those that are accepted by virtually all eg the 18 year pause and the fake concensus argument.

so back to you (as if)

I love circle parties,....... yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more more more Cheesy

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: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #34 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:16pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:12pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:05pm:

Neferti wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:58pm:

DRAH, yet again, proves he is off his meds. Grin

Where's the logic behind that statement?

(Thanx for playing Roll Eyes

)

every.... single..... post..... you..... make.....

QED

...don't be embarrassed for life that you voted for copper internet Cool

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

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #35 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:36pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

The indisputable 18 year pause in warming….

Why do you keep repeating this moronic assertion?

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change physical science draft report, released in late September, said it is a near certainty that rates of sea-level rise -- pushed up largely because warmer water expands -- have accelerated over the last two centuries.

The IPCC also reported it was very likely that rates of sea-level rise from 1993 to 2010 had almost doubled, from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate for the 20th century to a 0.125-inch-per-year average rate.

To Willis and other scientists, this is a clear signal that global warming continues.

"Sea levels are still rising; the ice sheets are still melting; the oceans are still getting more acidic," Willis said. "All of that stuff is still going on just as it has, unabated."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #36 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:39pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:05pm:

and no refutations from you either. What citations do you need? the 18year pause that is accepted by everyone and documented in a million places?

No it hasn't you pathetic liar.

We would like to see a citation of where NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". - as you have claimed.

You have been asked for this over and over again - and each time you run away like a little girl.

And now here you are - spinning the same "pause in global warming" crap all over again.

Truly, truly pathetic.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con? Reply #37 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:45pm
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

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21592 Gender:	Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con? Reply #38 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:25pm http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries_thumb.png So still within 2SD.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21592
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #39 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:30pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 12:36pm:

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change physical science draft report, released in late September, said it is a near certainty that rates of sea-level rise -- pushed up largely because warmer water expands -- have accelerated over the last two centuries.

Wow, way before global warming, merely a recovery from the LIA.

Back to top

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #40 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 3:13pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:23pm:

yeah... but to be fair, you did take a massive u-turn away from climate change and address your own pet causes.

Human damage to the environment is my pet cause?

Tell me, do you not think that the environment and climate are linked?

As to discussing the science - My point about the "science" is that NEITHER side of the debate has been particularly faithful to the actual science... Yet, your argument merely focuses on one side... You see, I agree with you that the science has been poorly applied, where we differ is that is the problem with BOTH sides. Hence, it is a waste of time arguing about this single issue, when the BIGGER picture is what is really at stake.

Whilst the cue of single issue whiners maintain their ongoing rage at the other team of single issue whiners - humans continue having a destructive impact on the ONE environment we have to live on. There are no second chances if we stuff it up. As such, I hope that those who are positive that our impact on our environment is nothing to worry about are right - however, I also think we are stupid as a species to continually ignore the damage we do.

Being a closed system, it is quite reasonable to conclude that our polluting, denuding, over populating, consuming and amassing of much non biodegradable junk could indeed have some impact on climate - that could ultimately be very bad of us and other species. It probably won't matter to our generation, but the generation that has to clean up for us I doubt will be very impressed at our belligerence and ignorance. It would also seem pretty reasonable to come to the conclusion that we are harming the environment. At some point there will be a tipping point. None of the debaters presently in this seem to be able to point to when or where that tipping point might be (apparently the science isn't in)... That should be at the very least concerning to any thinking sentient being - yet, it appears a great number of humans are not at all concerned...

As I said earlier, it matters not which "side" one supports with the alleged science, apparently it has ALL been debunked already... Why would I waster further time with that?

I don't support either side of the climate change debate, because both sides are mostly populated by politicians, opinion piece writers and pseudo scientists... Both sides attempt baffle with bullshit and push their own barrows rather than educate. The "science" as you put it, has been hijacked by the unscientific. Once again, why would I waste my time with that then?

You certainly can choose to write on any single aspect (minutiae) you like, freedom of speech is like that. However, likewise, I am equally free to push my own "pet cause", which, as I see it, is the bigger picture that includes climate...

I find it funny that despite the "other" issues, people gravitate back to "climate change" because it is an un-winnable distraction from the much harder discussion.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Phemanderac Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3507 Gender:	Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con? Reply #41 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 3:14pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:07pm: ten threads on this topic and prozac_now moves just this one to the never-spotted dark back closet of the forum. NEver trust a drug-dependant clown like him. You don't think it is a bit of a hint that climate and environment might be linked?
Back to top	On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day... "They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean.. IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #42 - Jul 26^th, 2015 at 5:33pm

lee wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:25pm:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries_thumb.png

So still within 2SD.

The bottom half of 2 standard deviations is outside of 1 standard deviation... how often would you expect to see that?

What about 1.5 standard deviations?

Cheesy

Tony Abbott is up against a wall and if the el nino goes bad for him bye bye!!

I don't think he will take the risk: that means we are going to an election!!

Cheesy

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