lee likes computer model simulations when he thinks they confirm his beliefs.

He just doesn't like them when they confirm man-made global warming.

You aren't fooling anyone.

Robot wrote on Dec 14^th, 2018 at 8:34pm:



lee is infamous for this dishonest form of debating

lee wrote on Dec 15^th, 2018 at 11:50am:


Good on you Lee.

You're keeping the bustards honest.

You're also up to date with most things.

I must admit I have lost some interest in AGW debate mostly because no matter what people like us say it's inevitable because most are sheep and agree with the official story.   

Keep up the good work, although I have stopped investigating I do read most of what you post and learn it of there...........................

Robot wrote on Dec 15^th, 2018 at 7:08pm:


Yes, who to believe?
An actual scientist who has studied these matters for a large part of their lives
Or some keyboard warrior blogging political emotive nonsense

That's not an "appeal to authority" fallacy it's an "appeal to expertise"

Since the carbon tax power prices have more than doubled.

When the oligarchy establish their carbon derivatives market don't be surprised if the price of carbon derivatives fluctuates like petrol prices and power prices the same.

Then I'll come back here and remind every day......

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 11:11am:


And none of those alleged conspiracy theories have anything to do with the theory of human induced climate change.

Fixed it for you.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 16^th, 2018 at 10:31am:


You mean like the 90 odd climate scientists who wrote the SR5 report?

"Since 1970 the global average temperature has been rising at a rate of 1.7°C per century, compared to a long-term decline over the past 7,000 years at a baseline rate of 0.01°C per century (NOAA 2016, Marcott et al. 2013)."

http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter1.pdf 

When the Marcott  said this in reply to a query about the last 100 years -

Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. "

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

Not robust, cannot be considered representative, and not the basis for its conclusions?

Drawing an inference specifically denied by Marcott.

This is allegedly from scientists who actually studied the science.

Let's see you turn that into a "conspiracy theory".

Or perhaps misrepresentation is the "new" science.

AiA wrote on Dec 19^th, 2018 at 5:28am:



In that case we wouldn't have medicines, fantastic surgery procedures, penicillin, overpopulation, decent housing, the dole, pensions etc.

Did you see the recent report that said Neanderthals had lead in their systems?

AiA wrote on Dec 19^th, 2018 at 5:28am:


You mean climate never changed before that?

if u say someone has died from poison... Lee will ask " What u think no one has died before "