Emission Trading and climate change

Page 139 of 377 FirstFirst ... 39 89 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 189 239 ... LastLast
Results 6,901 to 6,950 of 18819
  1. #6901
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You truly don't get this, do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    Isn't this the big problem with any new tax, we saw opportunistic price increases with the GST, there has to be a possibility this will happen with the Carbon Tax. It really depends on public pressure, if there is a lot of press about increases we are more likely to see price gouging. If there is plenty of press about how little some industries such as service industries will be effected then there will be huge pressure for them to resist jacking up prices.
    Pay attention now champ, the whole intent on this policy is "jacking up prices". This TAX will drive prices increasingly higher, year after year after year. This will not be gouging, this is the actual intent of the policy. Gouging will likely happen alongside this, but you obviously don't understand that the actual intent of this policy is to drive prices higher and higher year after year. Do you not understand this? Do you think I'm lying to you? Have you read anything at all about this subject not listed on ABC, or Wikipedia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    The aim of the tax has to be at the user end of the equation, be it industry or the home, I think we would all like to see a lot more on how this is going to work. At the moment there is a lot of hype and misinformation especially in the blogasphere, we actually would be better served with a bit more honesty and accuracy than the opinionated rants that seem to dominate at the moment.
    Didn't JuLIAR not wear out enough "shoe leather"? Did she LIE again about explaining this to all Australians, because you obviously missed out by your self-admission above.

    LAST Saturday I noted Julia Gillard's shoe leather campaign to sell the carbon tax had been reduced to a token effort after the first 12 days.

    Gillard walks, chews gum and is stuck with tax | The Australian
    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    As for so called dirty brown coal, it has far more uses than power generation, it can be used as a fertiliser and in a number of manufacturing processes. Industry must continually modernise to remain competitive and profitable, it may well be that it is time to move on from some of these products however it is difficult to have these conversations while the troglodytes have the ascendancy.
    You really haven't read a lot about this have you?

    You obviously aren't too concerned about the effects of your AGW Hypothesis cult on the world then?

    Yet you still happily accuse others of "opinionated rants"?

    Is hypocrisy the first commandment of this cult?

  2. #6902
    Novice
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wonthaggi
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Edited highlights of Dr Freud's most recent posts.

    Religions and cults use the word "believe" all the time
    I am trying to figure out whether you guys truly don't understand this stuff, or if you are deliberately just repeating a mantra you know is ridiculous in the hope of converting some disinterested observers to your cult?
    You seriously don't get it yet do you?
    Well, you guys always tell us how much you "believe" the AGW hypothesis cult, and that we realists do not "believe" these pre-existing poorly thought out beliefs
    "You can't handle the truth" - Col Nathan Jessup.
    Pay attention now champ
    Didn't JuLIAR not wear out enough "shoe leather"? Did she LIE again about explaining this to all Australians, because you obviously missed out by your self-admission above
    You really haven't read a lot about this have you?
    You obviously aren't too concerned about the effects of your AGW Hypothesis cult on the world then?
    Is hypocrisy the first commandment of this cult?

    He really has mastered the art of being insulting and demeaning, however why the continual reference to cult, and the inability to move beyond the most basic slander and insults to get across a point. Generally the main reason is lack of substance however some of the replies aren't bad even if they do bend the truth a bit. Given that as you trawl back through the posts there is the same continual slant then it can probably be put down to the fact that he has only one style of discussion and that is to be objectionable and confrontational when ever he feels under threat. A thread like this could be so much more informative if people could actually accept it is OK for others to have differing views, sadly though the material doesn't encourage that.

    By the way asking for a list of what is going to be affected is simply silly, who here is the designer of this new tax, none of us, so why would you think that any of us are preparing a list. Treasury has done some modelling, if you are really interested in the truth and what those in the know think is going to happen have the foresight to go to the most likely source to provide the information. Next you will be asking how much it will impact the price of cake, Mr John Hewson (ex Lib leader) may well be happy to point you in the right direction.

  3. #6903
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    You also ignore or keep not understanding that the Planet Earth stopped warming nearly 15 years ago (notwithstanding the big El Nino in '98) and all the IPCC fascientists are bemused and stupefied about this, because it means their precious AGW hypthesis greenie cult is being busted by nature itself. Poetic justice has never been this hilarious.
    Did it really?



    Graph from: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

    I would suggest that the ignorance is purely yours!
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  4. #6904
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Wtf?

    Is that your 15 year time scale?

    No wonder you guys don't get this stuff.

    Here, this may help. The second half of this graph is the last 15 years. You will notice a very gentle increase in temperatures over time which matches the "natural" cycles that the Planet Earth has been going through since the end of the Little Ice Age.




    And here's a big picture overview of the natural cycles to contextualise the graph above, lest I be accused of cherry picking (again ).





    Wow! Amazing, huh? The climate changes naturally! Who would have thought.

    Take note of the actual "cherry picking" done by the IPCC fascientists who take a short period during the 20th Century and "hypothesise" about imaginary feedback loops, then greenwash lazy politicians and people who can't be bothered reading enough material to understand their idiocy. And how long has the climate been changing on the Planet Earth? Oh yeh, about 4.5 billion years? Has it been warmer than now before? Much, much warmer? Ask JuLIAR, she's introducing a TAX that will guarantee the Planet Earth will not get any warmer.

    Seriously people, don't drink the Kool-Aid. Read something, read anything, educate yourselves.

  5. #6905
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I use the term advisedly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    He really has mastered the art of being insulting and demeaning
    Well, I don't know about "mastered", but us Jedi's keep getting better and better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    however why the continual reference to cult
    Because that is what this little cult is. You obviously have not read the thread either? I started calling it a theory, now use the descriptor "hypothesis" for the failed scientific effort, then used to call the "movement" a religion, but on further investigation the term "cult" is much more appropriate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    Yeh, you guys are hilarious. First you sanction the "artful" hanging of little girls by the neck, just to sell your cult. Then you laugh at the blowing up of little kids in a bloodbath, just to sell your little cult. Then you support the terrorising of our Aussie kids in classrooms, just to sell your little cult. Now you joke about the extinction of our species, which your greenie mates have certainly not been joking about for years, as I have posted in this thread, just to sell your little cult.

    News flash champ, most Aussies ain't buying your little cult.

    But please keep up religious fervour of your inane insults, it demonstrates continually how little scientific or economic evidence or understanding your cult has on these issues if that's all you've got to post.


    cult

    1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
    b. The followers of such a religion or sect.

    2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
    3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
    4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
    5. a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
    b. The object of such devotion.

    6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
    That's why you guys always say that you "believe" in the AGW hypothesis, and you say that we don't "believe" in this farce.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    and the inability to move beyond the most basic slander and insults to get across a point
    Well, slander actually refers to the spoken word, whereas libel refers to the written word, both subsumed by the concept of defamation, but lets not quibble on semantics, as much as you guys love to.

    And I like to think my insults are not basic, but more refined and intellectual? I guess in contradicting yourself you've demonstrated I'm not a "master" after all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    there is the same continual slant then it can probably be put down to the fact that he has only one style of discussion
    See, I keep telling everyone how consistent I am, I'm glad that at least you have noticed.

    As soon as the facts change, so does my opinion about those facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    A thread like this could be so much more informative if people could actually accept it is OK for others to have differing views, sadly though the material doesn't encourage that.
    Having read a lot about this stuff, I posit that this thread (if you read it from the beginning) is one of the best repositories of contested information on many aspects of this farce, including the science, economics, opinions, media from both macro and micro aspects.

    All opinions and views are encouraged (and soundly debated and challenged), but opinions masquerading as science will be duly denigrated with some passion by us realists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    By the way asking for a list of what is going to be affected is simply silly, who here is the designer of this new tax, none of us, so why would you think that any of us are preparing a list.
    So you actually have no idea how this TAX will affect the economy then? You're happy just to "believe" what's on the new "clean energy future" propaganda site?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    Treasury has done some modelling, if you are really interested in the truth and what those in the know think is going to happen have the foresight to go to the most likely source to provide the information.
    We've already posted and resoundingly ridiculed this modelling (read it if you care enough about this cult). It's not The Treasury's fault, JuLIAR gave them parameters and assumptions that can only be described as sh--.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    Next you will be asking how much it will impact the price of cake
    Let them eat it, huh?

    Us pesky peasants!

  6. #6906
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Tell these clowns they can stick it...somewhere that's not your mailbox!

    "RETURN TO SENDER"

    by John izzard
    July 29, 2011
    From the Gillard government’s Hollowmen Department comes the latest spin, trickery, manipulation or stunt—call it what you may. Four million items of junk-mail are about to hit our letterboxes, compliments of Greg Combet, our Minister for Changing the Climate.

    What can you do?
    Send it back.

    In the film Network, Australian actor Peter Finch playing the part of a frustrated TV news reader threw open his window and screamed out across the rooftops of New York “I’m not going to take it any more”. If only we could do that? If only they’d listen?
    We, the long suffering victims of the “progressive governments” that emerged out of the 2007 and 2010 federal elections, have had to sit back and watch a cascade of ideological failures in just about every reach of government action, policy and intervention. Rotten ideas that have ended in financial messes. Rotten ideas that have cost lives.
    Now the country is set to embark upon the crazy notion that the world’s climate can be controlled from a room in Canberra. It can’t. But to try to convince a large chunk of the Australian public that it can, the “junk-mail drive” is coming to a letter box near you. Like any junk mail offer be very careful. Is it a truthful offer? Are you being told all of the facts? Beware of the promises! How many sets of STEAK-KNIVES do you get…free?
    One way to protest to the Hollowmen of our government is to send the junk back to Greg Combet.

    If it arrives in an envelope simply write RETURN TO SENDER and post it.
    If it arrives as loose junk-mail, pop it into an envelope and address it to:

    The Hon. Greg Combet
    Minister for Climate Change
    House of Representatives
    Parliament House
    Canberra ACT 2600


    This won’t stop them, but it will let them know - “We’re not buying”.


    Quadrant Online - "RETURN TO SENDER"
    It's started:




    Like many, reader Bernd returns the propaganda to sender ... with a message from us all.



    Not stupid | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    That's your tax dollars paying for all this crud.

  7. #6907
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You want scary?

    So if you guys think that us discussing price rises is scary, what do think this is:



    And as for the coal sector being shut down, Flannery agrees with Bob Brown, but The Treasury has not modelled this, they are modelling massive increases in coal burning:




    So, how will this policy simultaneously shut down the coal industry and double it at the same time?


    Are you understanding yet that these people have no f---ing idea what they are doing!
    Last edited by Dr Freud; 6th Aug 2011 at 04:38 PM. Reason: Fix videos

  8. #6908
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    You also ignore or keep not understanding that the Planet Earth stopped warming nearly 15 years ago (notwithstanding the big El Nino in '98) and all the IPCC fascientists are bemused and stupefied about this, because it means their precious AGW hypthesis greenie cult is being busted by nature itself. Poetic justice has never been this hilarious.
    And just to explore this a little more...

    The graph in the post above shows the warming continuing, so where does this "cooling" or "not warming" claim come from?

    If you look at at the textual data that makes up the graph:

    Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C) (Anomaly with Base: 1951-1980)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
    ----------------------------------
    1995 0.37 0.28
    1996 0.29 0.37
    1997 0.39 0.39
    1998 0.56 0.38
    1999 0.32 0.42
    2000 0.33 0.45
    2001 0.47 0.45
    2002 0.56 0.48
    2003 0.55 0.54
    2004 0.48 0.55
    2005 0.63 0.56
    2006 0.55 0.53
    2007 0.58 0.55
    2008 0.44 0.55
    2009 0.57 *
    2010 0.63 *
    2011 * *

    From: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
    You can see there was a high temperature in 1998 (which I have highlighted in red). By using this a base, some then claim, as 1999, 2000 and 2001 were cooler, that this is evidence that the world is cooling and the AGW theory is false. In 2002 the temperature reached the same as that of 1998, and in 2005 exceeded it.

    So... How does the "15 years" claim come about? Well if you twist the figures, and use a single carefully selected annual-mean figure as a base (i.e. the single 1998 figure - highlighted in red) and comparing it to a 5-year-mean figure. You could falsely claim that it "isn't warming". It is a case of a false comparison comparing a 5-year-mean against an annual-mean figure - apples and oranges so to speak. To do the proper comparison, you either compare annual-mean-to-annual-mean or 5-year-mean-to-5-year-mean. i.e use the 5-year-mean figure for 1998 (highlighted in blue and use it as a base for comparison for the following years.

    There are a few other variations on the "earth has cooled since (insert year)" theme. One of them only considers the temperature of a particular continent - Hardly a valid measure of global temperature!

    To claim that the "Earth stopped warming nearly 15 years ago" is simply false, misleading and unsubstantiated. This is the sort of false, misleading information that the "shock jocks" like to continually repeat.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  9. #6909
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Speak for yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    Don't over react this is hardly a high brow thread is it
    Feel free to put your contributions in this basket.

    But as I said above, this thread and associated links (with it's occasional invective along the way ) is a very comprehensive look at this issue, whatever you views are on this farce.

    I think all sides have presented their arguments well, at various times.

    It is just natural that we realists have triumphed as we use fact based logic.




  10. #6910
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    The graph that Dr Freud posted by from Roy Spencer's website. It uses monthly figures. It is a bit like saying it was cool in winter therefore the world is not warming!

    Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".

    The declaration states:
    "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

    Roy Spencer (scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    AND he is going on about cults???
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  11. #6911
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post



    Why did you post an old graph rather than the latest one?


    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  12. #6912
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    It is a bit like a graph he posted some time back in which the allegation is that the Liberals are always fixing up Labor deficits, but managed to start it conveniently enough that it eliminated the data showing the deficit Hawke inherited from Howard. The sad part is since the seventies our governments have attempted to run balanced budgets with surplus in good times and deficits coming from recessionary periods.



    This was the graph used, but Dr Freud, as is his want, created a lie from the truth by eliminating the period showing the early Liberal deficits. He also ommitted the important connection of world wide recessionary periods on the deficits. this is consistant with the plethora of rot that gets posted in the hope that by putting in volume we will overlook the quality. the world cycled regularly into deficit up until the recession we had to have around 1990, and you can see that Labor improved the situation up until they lost the 1996 election and the Howard government with the exception of some buffeting from the asian financial crisis had a dream run up until they lost power and labor scored the GFC and what do you know history repeated itself. the bit that is worrying is that there are plenty out there who possibly believe the spin and lies.

    EDITED POST... PLAY THE BALL, NOT THE MAN.

  13. #6913
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Global Warming & Terra Forming Terra: Global Temperature DeclineGlobal Temperature Decline


    This item gives us a fair measure of the total temperature decline over the past several years. This means that the bulk of the gain that had all excited has now dissipated. It is still set about the normal average so it is not getting colder per se. And average for the twentieth century is sufficient to maintain pressure on the sea ice.

    The Holocene has a remarkably stable two degree spread. We saw the bottom during the little ice age and recently we had a look at the top. CO2 remains unconvincing for all this. Quite simply, CO2 is on a persistent uptrend that will be broken during this century as we convert to alternative power and abandon coal and hydrocarbons. Global temperatures are not on a persistent general trend but are showing decadal fluctuations in a warm century not impacted by cooling major events.

    This general reversal has made fools of the Al Gore School of climate science as it really had too. This is specifically why I began this blog by disassociating the current temperature uptrend form the long established rise in CO2. I thought at the time that the claimed linkage was optimistic and also highly suspect science. So far, I have had no reason whatsoever to change that opinion. We still have increasing CO2 to counter and this blog has been in the forefront in establishing viable options. Otherwise we get to talk about the weather when things slow down a bit.

    Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth'

    June 2009 saw another drop in global temps

    Sunday, July 05, 2009By
    Marc MoranoClimate Depot
    The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth's temperature. This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.

    According to the latest data courtesy of algorelied.com: "For the record, this month's Al Gore / 'An Inconvenient Truth' Index indicates that global temperatures have plunged approximately .74°F (.39°C) since Gore's film was released." (see satellite temperature chart
    here with key dates noted, courtesy of www.Algorelied.com - The global satellite temperature data comes from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Also see: 8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps)

    Gore -- who is fond of saying the Earth has a "fever" -- has not yet addressed the simple fact that global temperatures have dropped since the release of his global warming film. (Gore has also not addressed this: Another Moonwalker Defies Gore:
    NASA Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldrin rejects global warming fears: 'Climate has been changing for billions of years' - Moonwalkers Defy Gore's Claim That Climate Skeptics Are Akin To Those Who Believe Moon Landing was 'Staged')

    A record cool summer has descended upon many parts of the U.S. after predictions of the "
    year without a summer." There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years.

    In addition, New
    peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 )

    This means that today's high school kids being forced to watch Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” –
    some of them 4 times in 4 different classes – will be nearly eligible for AARP (age 50) retirement group membership by the time warming resumes if these new studies turn out to be correct. (Editor's Note: Claims that warming will “resume” due to explosive heat in the "pipeline" have also been thoroughly debunked. See: Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. 'There is no warming in the pipeline' )
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  14. #6914
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  15. #6915
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    There has been no global warming since 1998
    The Telegraph ^ | 7/6/11 | James Delingpole
    Posted on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 10:51:13 PM by markomalley
    The headline of this post really shouldn’t be controversial. It chimes perfectly with what Kevin “null hypothesis” Trenberth wrote in that notorious 2009 Climategate email to Michael Mann:
    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
    And it’s what Phil Jones admitted in a BBC interview when he said that there had been no “statistically significant” warming since 1995.
    Why then am I mentioning it now? W-e-l-l, because just as ze war is to the Germans, Chappaquiddick is to the Kennedy family and that Portland masseuse incident to Al Gore, so the recent lack of warming is to the, er, Warmists. They hate it. It’s an affront to everything they believe in. Damn it, if the world isn’t warming with the alacrity they’d prefer, how are they going to keep the funding gravy train going, and how are they going to persuade an increasingly sceptical populace that the “science” is “settled”, the debate over and the time for action is now? That’s why they can’t reminded of the truth often enough. It’s like salting the slugs that are ruining your garden: necessary, but also kind of fun too.

    (Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  16. #6916
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    1998 Europe’s Temperatures Show No Evidence Of Warming Since 1998

    By P Gosselin on 9. Juli 2011
    Europe (Graphic source: Wikipedia)

    By Matti Vooro
    The European Environment Agency recently (March 2011) updated their European temperature data by adding the data for the years 2010 and the winter of 2011. The data can be found at EEA 2010, KNMI (http://climexp.knmi.nl), based onClimate Research Unit (CRU) gridded datasets HadCrut3 (land and ocean) and CruTemp3 (land only) from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk
    WINTER TEMPERATURES 1948-2011
    European winters seem to have gone through an alternating warm-cool –warm- cool cycle since the 1940s and now appear headed for a cooler cycle like the 1962-1987 period.
    A LOOK AT THE MORE RECENT WINTER TEMPERATURES 1998-2011
    European winter temperatures have been cooling more recently since 1998, and especially 2009-2011.
    European annual temperatures warmed from 1998-2007 but have started to cool over the last 3 years in a row since 2008.
    SUMMER TEMPERATURES 1998-2010
    On the surface, European summers seem to be getting warmer since 1998. However the higher warming summers of 2003, 2006, and 2010 were all preceded by or affected by an El Nino, just before or as the El Nino partly happened during these summers. So the extra warming may be due to a natural El Nino cycle. If one discounts these El Nino years, the summer temperatures are quite flat and show no real base warming due to global warming. For more detail information on El Nino years see the NOAA site http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov.
    HISTORIC MEAN WINTER TEMPERATURES FOR BERLIN, GERMANY – IMPACT OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION
    For those Europeans who still believe that their climate is primarily affected by human generated carbon dioxide, the graph below illustrates that the NAO level seems to be a much more significant cold winter factor affecting temperatures in Berlin, Germany. The temperature data is from GISS Station Temperature Data and NAO data is from CGD’s Climate analysis Section of Jim Hurrell http://www.cgd.ucar.edu. According to the NOAA:
    The NAO consists of a north-south dipole of anomalies, with one center located over Greenland and the other center of opposite sign spanning the central latitudes of the North Atlantic between 35°N and 40°N. The positive phase of the NAO reflects below-normal heights and pressure across the high latitudes of the North Atlantic and above-normal heights and pressure over the central North Atlantic, the eastern United States and western Europe. The negative phase reflects an opposite pattern of height and pressure anomalies over these regions.”
    FINAL COMMENTS
    There is nothing in the above graphs and figures that would warrant the drastic reductions being planned for carbon dioxide emissions and the extremely expensive green energy options being planned by Europe in light of the most difficult economic environment that exists in Europe and the globe. Surely there are much more pressing problems that confront the world and Europe than solving an apparently non-existing problem that is only speculated to exist 100 years from now.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  17. #6917
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth'

    June 2009 saw another drop in global temps
    Psst, Marc, the temperature went back up again - and the long-term trend is UP. Get with it, and stop quoting out of date cheery-picked single-month figures.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  18. #6918
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    DOUG'S STACKS No Global Warming Since 1998
    July 6, 2011
    Invest in Kleenex, because Al Gore's going to be crying a LOT. The Daily Mail and Reason Online offer no solace either.

    From the Telegraph:
    No global warming since 1998? Simple. All you've got to do - as Kaufmann et al have done - is apply the Even Though We're Wrong We're Right Panacea Get-Out Formula. In this instance the ETWWWRPGOF (as it's snappily known) involves Blaming The Chinese. Yep, it turns out all that pollution that Chinese are pumping into the air thanks to their unhealthy obsession with economic growth and giving better lives to their children is actually counteracting the effects of Man Made Global Warming.

    "Results indicate that net anthropogenic forcing rises slower than previous decades because the cooling effects of sulfur emissions grow in tandem with the warming effects greenhouse gas concentrations. This slow-down, along with declining solar insolation and a change from El Nino to La Nina conditions, enables the model to simulate the lack of warming after 1998," the team explains.

    In other words Man Made Global Cooling is cancelling out Man Made Global Warming.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  19. #6919
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default







    ============================= From Andrew Bolt | Herald Sun
    My editorial on the carbon tax fraud. I then interview Professor Richard Lindzen, who says Gillard’s tax wouldn’t work, even if man really was warming the globe. Which he doubts.
    Carbon Sunday

    Andrew Bolt – Sunday, July 10, 11 (11:36 am)

    Vent here while venting is still legal.
    The Climate Change Committee deal here.
    UPDATE
    Some initial, quick thoughts:
    - $4.3 billion over four years is going to be spent above what the tax raises to buy off the public with tax cuts and handouts. That’s one wild way to sell a tax, spending more than it raises.
    - the compensation must soon run out if the Government doesn’t want to broke. The deal says that after three years, companies can buy offsets overseas for up to half their emissions. This means that costs here will rise, but the revenue to compensate for these rises is sent overseas.
    - The Government claims this package will reduce emissions by 160 millions tonnes by 2020. But the immediate tax and spending levels cannot do that. This target can be achieved only with a dramatic raising of the tax. No figure is given for how much of our emissions will be cut by the tax as it.
    - The Government refuses to nominate employment effects on the specific industries involved.
    - No figure is given for what effect this will have on the world’s temperature.
    - Julia Gillard cites in her support Margaret Thatcher, who indeed did warn in 1988 that we should worry about global warming. What Gillard fails to add was that by 2002, Thatcher had developed second thoughts about the alarmists, writing that global warming “provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism”.
    - The Government is spending $2.7 billion extra over the next financial year alone – before the tax even gets imposed – to buy support throught tax cuts and handouts.
    - It’s a magic tax:
    Cost increases: <a title=”Households to see average cost increases of $9.90 a week. However, they will also receive assistance of $10.10 a week on average.Households to see average cost increases of $9.90 a week. However, they will also receive assistance of $10.10 a week on average.
    - Gillard announces also she’ll buy out a 2000 Megawatt power station over the next decade at a price not revealed. That’s billions to actually reduce our power supplies, not increase them.
    ================================================== =======
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  20. #6920
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    I find Chris rather amusing.

    Psst...60 years is not chicken shi#
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  21. #6921
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Coldest Year Ever : UAH March Temperatures Coldest And Going Down

    Posted on March 7, 2011 by stevengoddard

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem..._ch05.r002.txt
    Something interesting is happening with UAH satellite temperatures. Not only is March, 2011 the coldest since at least 2003 – but this is the only year where temperatures have been declining during March.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  22. #6922
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    I find Chris rather amusing.

    Psst...60 years is not chicken shi#
    We think you are quite amusing and entertaining too. We enjoy the challenge of translating your posts - they are sure giving BabelFish a good workout. They're mostly written in Polish, right?

    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  23. #6923
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Some promising news...

    Climate change sceptics endangered: study



    Climate change sceptics are an endangered species in Australia, a national survey shows.

    The survey of almost 3100 Australians found 74 per cent believe the world's climate is changing.

    When asked a different question about the causes of climate change, which removed the reference to personal beliefs, 90 per cent of respondents said human activity was a factor.

    Just 5 per cent said climate change was entirely caused by natural processes.

    Overall, less than 6 per cent of respondents could reasonably be classified as true climate change sceptics, the study by Griffith University researchers found.

    "It's clear that people want the government to do something about climate change and they also feel they have a personal responsibility to act," environmental and social psychologist Professor Joseph Reser said.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  24. #6924
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default This is exhausting!

    What's the difference between an AGW hypothesis "believer" and a computer?

    You can punch information into a computer.

    This is nearly harder than watching the Wallabies lack of performance today, nearly.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    And just to explore this a little more...
    Okay, if we must, again...

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The graph in the post above shows the warming continuing, so where does this "cooling" or "not warming" claim come from?
    The graph shows a temporary halt in the natural warming cycle that has been occuring since the end of the little ice age. But as I have said before, this is just a visual display because it has become blatantly obviously that AGW hypothesis "believers" either can't or won't read or comprehend.

    But like I keep saying, lines in a graph do not prove anything, this requires rigorous statistical analysis. This was done by Dr Phil Jones who is a wholehearted supporter and believer of the AGW hypothesis cult. He is in fact their data "guru", or was until his ineptitude was uncovered during CLIMATEGATE. His work was verified by many other IPCC fascientists who were dismayed at the "travesty of no warming" as Marc's post indicates again. Let's see what Phil says:

    Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.


    And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
    Now all you people who claim to have "the science" on your side would obviously be very well versed in NHST. You would understand that the only two possible outcomes from a successful study is that the Null is either accepted or rejected. Dr Phil Jones has accepted the Null, and rejected the alternative hypothesis, which is the AGW hypothesis. This means the study cannot distinguish the results from random chance, measurement error, or just plain noise in the data. In layman's terms, the study says "Nothing is happening". Specifically in this study, "the science" is saying there is no warming.

    If you'd like more details as to where this "claim" comes from, you can contact Dr Phil Jones here:

    Professor Phil Jones




    Current Post: Director, CRU

    Room Number: CRU 1.06

    Telephone: 01603 592090 (+44 1603 592090)

    Fax: 01603 507784 (+44 1603 507784)

    Email: p.jones@uea.ac.uk

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/jonesp


    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    If you look at at the textual data that makes up the graph:

    You can see there was a high temperature in 1998 (which I have highlighted in red). By using this a base, some then claim, as 1999, 2000 and 2001 were cooler, that this is evidence that the world is cooling and the AGW theory is false. In 2002 the temperature reached the same as that of 1998, and in 2005 exceeded it.
    You must be yanking my chain now? Are you seriously just picking out random years and trying to compare one against the other? What do you call this scientific assessment, the "making sh-- up" scientific method?

    Because 2005 was .07 (or 7/100th) of a degree warmer than 1998, you think you've "proved" the AGW hypothesis?

    From someone else I could forgive this, but from someone who chants the "cherry picking" mantra in cultish fashion, this is moving beyond hipocrisy toward something more pathological.

    Why don't you go argue with Dr Phil Jones who has accepted the Null hypothesis and rejected the AGW hypothesis, unlike you.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    So... How does the "15 years" claim come about? Well if you twist the figures, and use a single carefully selected annual-mean figure as a base (i.e. the single 1998 figure - highlighted in red) and comparing it to a 5-year-mean figure. You could falsely claim that it "isn't warming". It is a case of a false comparison comparing a 5-year-mean against an annual-mean figure - apples and oranges so to speak. To do the proper comparison, you either compare annual-mean-to-annual-mean or 5-year-mean-to-5-year-mean. i.e use the 5-year-mean figure for 1998 (highlighted in blue and use it as a base for comparison for the following years.
    I have no idea where you developed these wacky calculations from, I just prefer to stick to valid and reliable scientific and statistical methods. I'll just have to live with you guys calling me a sceptic I guess.

    And I used the word "notwithstanding" for a reason. The year 1998 is irrelevant to the last 15 year period in terms of the "natural" temperature trends.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    To claim that the "Earth stopped warming nearly 15 years ago" is simply false, misleading and unsubstantiated. This is the sort of false, misleading information that the "shock jocks" like to continually repeat.
    Wow.

    Dr Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, who is one of the biggest AGW hypothesis supporting climate scientists of all time, uses valid and reliable methodology to accept the Null hypothesis and reject the AGW hypothesis.

    And even after this he says in a cult like fashion that he still "believes" in the AGW hypothesis.

    Then you call his work "false, misleading and unsubstantiated" and you call him a "Shock Jock".


    He's gonna love your email.

  25. #6925
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Attacking the messenger again.

    So now you only "believe" atheist scientists?

    Now you may understand why I changed from calling this farce a religion into calling it a cult. I wanted to ensure that I was not inadvertently directing criticism toward peoples genuine right to believe in whatever faith system they prefer. These are called religions, they do not market themselves as science. Unlike the AGW hypothesis that is actually another belief system, yet tries to scam people into believing it is based on "scientific proof".

    You lot on the other hand are happy to throw mud at whoever speaks out against your cult. You can see below how you denigrate Dr Spencer's genuine right to freedom of religious belief, even though this has absolutely nothing to do with the satellite data I posted from his site. Are you saying that the satellites are biased toward Christianity, or Islam or Buddhism for that matter. You see, the base religion of all these people are irrelevant to "empirical scientific evidence" which is what the satellite data is. So why do you post information that is disparaging of Dr Spencer's base religion.

    Should we start posting information relating to your private life and behaviours that also are unscientific and use them in a smear campaign to say you are not scientific?

    Do you similarly mock all Islamic scholars for their beliefs in their base religion:

    Is there anything in the Qur’aan or Sunnah about global warming?

    Dr. Zaghloul al-Najjaar says:
    This hadeeth is a scientific miracle that describes a natural fact that was not understood by scientists until the late twentieth century, when it was proven by definitive evidence that the Arabian Peninsula was meadows and rivers in ancient times. Climate studies have also indicated that the arid desert is now on its way to becoming meadows and rivers again, because the earth throughout its long history passes through climatic changes that take place gradually over long periods of time, or they may be sudden and swift.


    Climate studies indicate that we are coming into a new rainy period, the evidence of which is the shift of the ice-cap in the northern hemisphere towards the south, and a noticeable fall in winter temperatures.


    The fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) referred to this ice age in his hadeeth “until the land of the Arabs once again becomes meadows and rivers” is proof of his Prophethood, and shows that he was always connected to divine revelation, and was taught by the Creator of the heavens and the earth. End quote.



    Islam Question and Answer - Is there anything in the Qur



    While I do not believe in these religious deities, I respect the rights of others to do so.

    But your continual grubby and personal smear campaign against all who speak against the AGW hypothesis just reinforces for everyone that you have no scientific credibility at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The graph that Dr Freud posted by from Roy Spencer's website. It uses monthly figures. It is a bit like saying it was cool in winter therefore the world is not warming!

    Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".

    The declaration states: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

    Roy Spencer (scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    And as for this:

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    AND he is going on about cults???
    Hopefully now you understand why I call this farce a cult, it is an attempt to show some respect to bona fide religions by not grouping them with my derision of this cult.

  26. #6926
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default There's no difference according to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Why did you post an old graph rather than the latest one?
    I just Googled (images) UAH and satellite data and a whole lot of charts popped up, with that one looking like the most recent. It was more than enough data to demonstrate the 15 year time period that you sought further information on, as opposed to the 130 YEAR time period you incorrectly posted.

    But the more important question is who cares about a few months of monthly data. This is irrelevant to "climate change" data, isn't it?

    Now, where did I read this:

    The graph that Dr Freud posted by from Roy Spencer's website. It uses monthly figures. It is a bit like saying it was cool in winter therefore the world is not warming!
    Are you now saying it was warm in summer, therefore the world IS warming?

    It is unfortunate for you that cults do not encourage coherence.

    When you continually set out to "nit pick", name call, and smear your opponents, rather than admit there is ZERO empirical evidence proving the AGW hypothesis, you further erode your credibility.

    That is how you end up in situations like this above where you contradict your own position, and only a few posts apart too.

  27. #6927
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I don't own the internet, you can use it too.

    Mate, are you ever gonna post anything original of merit, or are you just content to whine incessantly and incorrectly about what us realists post.

    You do understand that you are allowed to post any information you want. if you disagree with something, jsut post some facts refuting it, and the debate is over. Incessant whining can go on forever without resolution, just ask any husband! Sorry ladies.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    It is a bit like a graph he posted some time back in which the allegation is that the Liberals are always fixing up Labor deficits
    This was not an allegation, it is fact. Hawke/Keating racked up the debt and Howard/Costello paid it back. If you think that's an allegation and Howard/Costello actually racked up the debt, then Rudd/Swan paid it back, just post the info.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    but managed to start it conveniently enough that it eliminated the data showing the deficit Hawke inherited from Howard
    Mate, I don't design this stuff, I just cut and paste it, how many times do I have to say this. So I did NOT "start" any graph, NOR did I "eliminate" any data. And Howard was not Prime Minister prior to Hawke.

    No wonder you're all confused!

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    The sad part is since the seventies our governments have attempted to run balanced budgets with surplus in good times and deficits coming from recessionary periods.
    Yeh, previously Hawke and Keating just had "bad luck", then Howard just had all the "good luck" and now Rudd and JuLIAR just have had all the "bad luck". I guess it's irrelevant what government policies we have or how much we spend or how much debt we rack up, it's all just down to who's governing during the "good luck" cycle?

    FFS, what hope do we have with this level of voodoo economics being believed in the community?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    This was the graph used, but Dr Freud, as is his want, created a lie from the truth by eliminating the period showing the early Liberal deficits.
    Again, I eliminated nothing. But post whatever you want, it's a free country (for now, until Bob Brown gets to say what's fit to print).

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    He also ommitted the important connection of world wide recessionary periods on the deficits.
    Again, I omitted nothing. Are you seeing the pattern here yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post

    EDITED POST... PLAY THE BALL, NOT THE MAN.
    Unfortunately they've dropped the ball on this one, and it's game over!

  28. #6928
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    and stop quoting out of date cheery-picked single-month figures.
    But then you are upset about me ignoring single month figures to make a point about a 15 year time frame?

    Do you just complain about the semantics of anything we post because you CANNOT find a single shred of empirical scientific evidence proving this farce, and that really annoys you.

  29. #6929
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You mean old news.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Some promising news...
    Taken from when?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The survey was carried out in June and July last year
    But let's see how truly ridiculous this crud is:

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The survey of almost 3100 Australians found 74 per cent believe the world's climate is changing.
    The other 26% are idiots, the world's climate is always changing!

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    90 per cent of respondents said human activity was a factor.


    The other 10% are idiots. Of course human activity is a factor, so are whale farts, the question is about quantifying that factor.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Just 5 per cent said climate change was entirely caused by natural processes.
    These 5% are idiots, of course humans (apparently unnatural animals now ) have an effect in accordance with response above.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    "Our findings suggest that Australians feel the threat to their local region and nation more intensely and that's not surprising given the nature, intensity, and dramatic impacts of natural disaster events in the past few years," he said.
    So their responses are based on finite weather events anyway, not long term climate change.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    "With nonstop media images, sound bites, warning messages, and popularised science accounts of planetary threat, psychological impacts are not surprising.
    And the study even admits the media "hyperbowl" and scaremongering as influencing attitudes as opposed to reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    and funded by the federal government's Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency's Climate Change Adaptation Research Grants program.
    And us taxpayers again foot the bill for this sh--.

    When will this futile spending stop?

    We borrowed money from China to pay for this crud.

  30. #6930
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Boomerang this propaganda!




    Cool, huh?

    You know you want to do it!

  31. #6931
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Howard was Treasurer before Hawke you dill, as you well know, why can't you get your act out of the gutter and try a bit harder.

  32. #6932
    Mr Sexy Beast dazzler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Northern Rivers NSW
    Age
    55
    Posts
    964

    Default

    You lot still going.........wow........I thought you would have been tired of going around circles
    I just love sheepies!

  33. #6933
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Bugger, and I thought it was the joy of hitting your head against a brick wall.

  34. #6934
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dazzler View Post
    You lot still going.........wow........I thought you would have been tired of going around circles
    Welcome back dazzler!

    Where have you been?
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  35. #6935
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    But like I keep saying, lines in a graph do not prove anything, this requires rigorous statistical analysis. This was done by Dr Phil Jones who is a wholehearted supporter and believer of the AGW hypothesis cult. He is in fact their data "guru", or was until his ineptitude was uncovered during CLIMATEGATE. His work was verified by many other IPCC fascientists who were dismayed at the "travesty of no warming" as Marc's post indicates again. Let's see what Phil says:
    Let's....

    Global warming since 1995 'now significant'


    "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.


    "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.


    "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."


    Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.


    BBC News - Global warming since 1995 &#039;now significant&#039;
    You can keep cherry-picking and you can keep distorting the figures and comments, but the world is warming!
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  36. #6936
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Dunno about Dill, but somone's in a pickle.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Howard was Treasurer before Hawke you dill, as you well know, why can't you get your act out of the gutter and try a bit harder.
    Actually Keating was Treasurer before Hawke was for his brief stint.

    Do you guys think I just make this stuff up?

    But hopefully Abbott can be elected Prime Minister very soon and we can go through another one of those coincidentally aligned "good luck" economic periods that occur regardless of the idiot policies of people in government.

  37. #6937
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Welcome back.

    Quote Originally Posted by dazzler View Post
    You lot still going.........wow........I thought you would have been tired of going around circles
    Mate, it's been too cold and rainy outside for so long, so we may as well sit inside and chat about how this TAX in Australia will make the Planet Earth colder.

    Do you reckon it will?

  38. #6938
    Mr Sexy Beast dazzler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Northern Rivers NSW
    Age
    55
    Posts
    964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Welcome back dazzler!

    Where have you been?
    Helping Julia sort out her climate change policy.

    Lots of work......

    Learning to backflip was a biggie!
    How to lie and keep a straight face - that took a while.
    Ensuring nothing would be achieved - that was easy - Labor party modus operandi.

    So pretty busy but back now!

    Did those fellas ever admit they had misquoted me? Wouldn't think so but too many posts to read now
    I just love sheepies!

  39. #6939
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I thought the science was settled, it apparently keeps changing.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Let's....

    You can keep cherry-picking and you can keep distorting the figures and comments, but the world is warming!
    Do you not read anything I post here.

    It is a scientific fact that the world has been naturally warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. These warming and cooling cycles have been happening naturally for about 4.5 billion years. I have regularly posted proxy data and measured data demonstrating various periods of this 4.5 billion years of natural warming and cooling.

    If there's anything confusing about the preceding paragraph, please let me know and I am happy to clear it up.

    If you think me regularly citing the entire climate history of the Planet Earth is cherry-picking, then this is certainly proof of your adherence to this cultish mantra.

    If you keep confusing "effects" with "causes" then this is certainly proof you still haven't grasped the substantive matters that lead to your confusion.

    Periods of measured warming and measured cooling still require significant scientific work before we can begin to become confident with attribution, or causation, or "what's causing it" in a general translation.

    But enough correcting of your continual errors, let's get back to the statistics.

    What's Dr Phil Jones up to:

    2010 - And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

    2011 - Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair.
    Let's assume this latest analysis was reliable and valid (and more on this below) but Dr Phil was happy to say for 15 years there was no warming, mind you only after being hauled before standards committees for previously withholding these facts.

    Now apparently there is warming again.

    This science doesn't sound very settled. What if temperatures flatline over the next year or two? Does this mean next year he'll say it's not warming again for the last 17 years?

    Here's some others trying to figure out how settled this farce actually is NOT:

    So, at least based on the data at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...hadcrut3gl.txt, the trend since 1995 does not yet appear statistically significant.

    Ok…. but Hadcrut has another series. So, I tried this one:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...adcrut3vgl.txt.
    This one does show statistical significance if I treat the residuals as white noise. I bet Phil meant “If I use one of our series rather than the other.”

    The Blackboard » Statistical Significance since 1995? Not with HadCrut!
    But, and this is a big BUT, you keep forgetting that this discussion is about us humans accuracy in measuring a global temperature "effect". We are still very innacurate about quantifying this effect on a global scale. We have many issues such as the statistical debates above about how accurate and applicable the measurements of these effects are.


    Then you suddenly leap in cultish fashion to assuming the cause is guaranteed to be in accordance with your cult, even though I have demonstrated many times there is ZERO evidence proving this.


    Us realists are happy to debate the measurement accuracy of measuring these effects, which have now been "proved" are not in accordance with the AGW hypothesis over the last 15 years through numerous reliable and valid studies. If Dr Phil has now "adjusted" his data to show a different results, I and many others will be very keen to see if the "effect" we are measuring is showing warming again.


    Then we can go back to our debate on the causes, mine is the Null hypothesis, which stands as scientific fact. This is the natural warming trend arising after the last little ice age. Yours is the AGW hypothesis which has failed time after time, yet you still falsely claim it is a fact in cultish fashion.


    Hopefully soon we can see what data "adjustments" the good Dr has made in this presumably "peer-reviewed" paper that I can't find. I'll keep an eye out, but if you can dig it up that would be awful nice of you.

    Meanwhile, let's trash the Australian economy on the verge of the next global financial crisis and possibly global recession, based on IPCC fascientists chasing their next research grant.

  40. #6940
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Doc, seems like you are having trouble with that "mathurbation" again; can't help you out there, you are on your own, literally. But when you have a hand free grab a stats text book and see if you can explain the difference between warming that is statistically significant and warming that is not statistically significant. Which one causes the ice to melt?

  41. #6941
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dazzler View Post
    Helping Julia sort out her climate change policy.

    Lots of work......

    Learning to backflip was a biggie!
    How to lie and keep a straight face - that took a while.
    Ensuring nothing would be achieved - that was easy - Labor party modus operandi.

    So pretty busy but back now!

    Did those fellas ever admit they had misquoted me? Wouldn't think so but too many posts to read now
    I think Julia almost got away with it, it was that damn half pike in the middle that did her in, although of late there has been plenty of other front page news so both Julia and Tony are being left to their own devices which is a worry.

  42. #6942
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Let's assume this latest analysis was reliable and valid (and more on this below) but Dr Phil was happy to say for 15 years there was no warming, mind you only after being hauled before standards committees for previously withholding these facts.
    You are twisting the words and intent of Phil Jones. The data indeed shows warming - it wasn't 95% statistically confident data - only 93%. It DIDN'T show cooling, and it DIDN'T show "no warming".

    The last year of date has pushed the confidence level back over 95%.

    Twist the figures all you like (and I'm sure you will), but the scientific evidence shows that it is warming!
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  43. #6943
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Do you not read anything I post here.

    It is a scientific fact that the world has been naturally warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. These warming and cooling cycles have been happening naturally for about 4.5 billion years. I have regularly posted proxy data and measured data demonstrating various periods of this 4.5 billion years of natural warming and cooling.
    ... and solar output varying, and planets changing orbits, life evolving, meteoroid impacts... etc. There were - and are - many factors that can change the temperature and the atmosphere. AND the science has considered all these and more and determined that the latest temperature rise is due to man-made CO2.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  44. #6944
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX



    The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain.
    There are not many individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those who support global warming within the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right thing and take a stand against this evil, proving just how unscientifically founded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it. Below, you will find links to information and articles showing the proof that global warming is nothing more than just a bunch of hot air (pun intended).
    The date that you see by each headline is the date when it was posted here. If you know of a news story, research, or information that should be posted here, please let us know and provide us with a link. The articles posted for previous years have been archived and links are provided to them; by year; at the bottom of this page.

    25 July 2011 - Why We Should Give The Cold Shoulder To A BBC Trust Review That Argues The Broadcaster Should Ignore Global-Warming 'Deniers' [The BBC is Not interested in truth, only in reporting upon what they want to]
    25 July 2011 - Climate Change Sceptics Should Get Less BBC Coverage And Be Challenged 'More Vigorously', Says Report On Science Output [More proof as to how bias the media is and how one-sided the news they report upon is]
    20 July 2011 - The Warmers' CO2 Argument
    15 July 2011 - Climate Cops Blame Ozone For Illness [The climate kooks have launched another bizarre bid for attention -- this time claiming that global warming will cause millions of illnesses and cost billions of dollars]
    12 July 2011 - Australian Children Are Being Terrified By Climate Change Lessons [More insanity and scare tactics brought to you by the Global Warming Cult]
    12 July 2011 - Global-Warming Hysteria Hits Australia With Carbon Tax [Even more greed and more of your money being stolen by the Cult of Global Warming]
    08 July 2011 - Coal-Burning China's Rapid Growth May Have HALTED Global Warming [More lies and nonsense from the Cult of Global Warming. Just a short while back there were saying that this was the cause of global warming, not they are saying it is halting it. Just another typical cult tactic, when things go opposite of what you say, just turn your theology and teachings around so they fit with what is happening!]
    08 July 2011 - Global Warming? A New Ice Age? The Only Certainty Is That YOU'RE Paying For The Hysteria Of Our Politicians [More nonsense, stupidity, and greed. All they are after is to get all of your money and tell you how you should live your life!]
    08 July 2011 - Global Warning: Scientists In U-Turn As They Claim Extreme Weather And Climate Change Are Linked [The Cult of Global Warming has now decided to blame every weather event on global warming (sorry climate change). I don't know about you, but I hadn't noticed any reluctance on their part not to blame every shower on climate change previously]
    05 July 2011 - 'Climate Change Scam' Has Nothing To Do With Science
    23 June 2011 - Al Gore: Stabilize Population To Combat Global Warming [More INSANITY from the FALSE PROPHET of the GLOBAL WARMING CULT!]
    21 June 2011 - Scientists Now Predict A New Little Ice Age Is Near [More NONSENSE from the Cult that brought you global warming. I remember back in the late 1970'2 and early 1980's they were talking about an ice age by 1990. Obviously that never happened either. This just goes to prove what the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 3:19-20 (KJV): "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."]
    20 June 2011 - Head Of Oregon Global Warming Commission Shuts Down Question And Media (AGENDA 21) [Has an embedded video on the web page]
    16 June 2011 - Global Warming Not To Blame For 2011 Droughts
    14 June 2011 - The New Religion Of Global Warming
    13 June 2011 - UK: 'We Must Stop Pandering To Climate Scaremongers': Ex-Civil Service Chief Blasts Ministers For Global Warming 'Evangelism' [Global taxation (sorry warming)]
    31 May 2011 - Stopping Global Warming Can Only Be Achieved By The Limitation Of Democracy! [More craziest from the Cult of Global Warming and its members!]
    31 May 2011 - Global Warming Charlatans Feel The Heat
    29 Apr 2011 - Brainwashed Kid Travels The World Promoting The Global Warming Hoax
    25 Apr 2011 - Elementary "Earth Day" Indoctrination [Brainwashing of the young and innocent!] [Has an embedded video on the web page]
    21 Apr 2011 - Global Warming Or Crucifixion Day?
    18 Apr 2011 - EPA Official Says Jobs Don't Matter [Has an embedded video on the web page]
    18 Apr 2011 - Your Money's Gone With The Wind (And Solar)
    12 Apr 2011 - Simple Exercises To Promote Healthy Neck Muscles And Ligaments
    04 Apr 2011 - Obama's Limo Exempt From New 'Green' Policy
    30 Mar 2011 - Got Problems? Blame Global Warming
    29 Mar 2011 - The Global Warming Fleecing Of American Taxpayers
    29 Mar 2011 - How Hot Is The Core Of The Earth? [Has an embedded video on the web page]
    24 Mar 2011 - EPA Wrong To View Science As Settled
    15 Mar 2011 - INSANITY: 'Green' Price Tag: $700 Trillion To Drop Earth's Temp 1 Degree: Even EPA Admits Cost Of Regulating Greenhouse Gases 'Absurd'
    14 Mar 2011 - Once Again, Mum Nature Has Her Way!
    09 Mar 2011 - Inhofe: Obama Trying To Kill Oil And Gas, Force Green
    28 Feb 2011 - OU Professor Says Stormy Winter Nothing To Do With Global Warming Has
    22 Feb 2011 - NOAA Says Al Gore's Claim About Snow And Global Warming Is NONSENSE [More proof that this doomsday prophet and his cult are totally false!]
    17 Feb 2011 - The Nazi Origins Of Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory
    10 Feb 2011 - Al Gore's Incredibly Shrinking Credibility
    08 Feb 2011 - Blow To 'Global Warming' - Study: Many Himalayan Glaciers Are Growing Or Stable [And this is after the Cult of Global Warming has been going on and on about how the glaciers there are shrinking. More proof that they are nothing but a cult of lies!]
    07 Feb 2011 'Pulling The Plug' On Green Subsidies
    04 Feb 2011 - Gore's Unending Blizzard Of Lies
    04 Feb 2011 - How Climate Sanity Has Been Gored
    02 Feb 2011 - Snow, Freezing Rain Cancel Flights, Trains, School Across U.S. [So how long until the Global Warming Cult and its false prophet Al Gore come up with some hocus pocus nonsense about global warming causing this?]
    02 Feb 2011 - Global Warming Skepticism Reaches White House
    31 Jan 2011 - Another IPCC Global Warming Hoax Exposed---Glaciers GROWING In Himalayas, Not Melting!
    18 Jan 2011 - The Great 'Climate Change' 2011 Taxpayer Rip-Off
    18 Jan 2011 - UN Subterfuge...The Global Warming Hoax
    13 Jan 2011 - 49 Of 50 U.S. States Have Snow [Hey Al Gore, How do you and your Cult of Global Warming explain this? This goes completely against your false teachings and theology! More proof that you are just another false prophet spouting lies!]
    06 Jan 2011 - More Harsh Winter Weather On The Way [So what happened to the global warming? This weather goes completely against the theological teachings of the Cult of Global Warming and its false prophet Al Gore]
    06 Jan 2011 - ENGLAND: Why The Met Office Didn't Dare Tell Us It Was Getting Cold [The Met Office, being slaves to global warming computer models, seems that the results given to them for long term forecasts are wrong every time!]

    The Global Warming Hoax Archives:
    The Global Warming Hoax - 2010
    The Global Warming Hoax - 2009
    The Global Warming Hoax - 2008
    The Global Warming Hoax - 2007
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  45. #6945
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    As for the limp wristed, bike riding, welfare subsidized fringe that has temporarily polluted Australian politics I have news for you. Your time is coming to an end so fast that you will not know what hit you.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  46. #6946
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    What the hell has this got to do with the thread!!
    Sick of having to read this sort of crud, and then moderate.
    KEEP ON TOPIC OR RACK OFF.

  47. #6947
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    As for the limp wristed, bike riding, welfare subsidized fringe that has temporarily polluted Australian politics I have news for you. Your time is coming to an end so fast that you will not know what hit you.
    Look out cyclists! Marc is coming down the road in his 7 litre 4WD (brrm, brrm, brrm).
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  48. #6948
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    If his driving is anything like his efforts here he must be all over the road like a drunk one legged sailor on his first day of shore leave.

  49. #6949
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    The Arctic sea ice was was headed for a record low this year up until a few days ago when it suddenly slowed. Now it's back to melting at high rates and the chance of a new record low is still a possibility. The previous low was set in 2007, one of those years when the warming was not statistically significant. Guess the ice doesn't understand stats either.

  50. #6950
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    COMMENTARY: Global-warming politics - Washington Times







    COMMENTARY: Global-warming politics


    Aaaaah....they got me by the short and curly!!!

    Bloomberg News Former Vice President Al Gore “ducked” critics of global warming, avoiding a debate with a skeptical Czech president at a conference in California, according to opinionjournal.com.By
    -
    The Washington Times
    4:45 a.m., Wednesday, April 22, 2009


    Follow Us On


    Facebook


    Question of the Day


    The professional practice of pure science, like most other honorable life pursuits, has its opinion leaders, its majority opinion and its minority opinion. However, the mix of pure science with politics, which is necessary from a practical standpoint, has obvious pitfalls.



    To some large or small degree, highly opinionated and domineering personalities, stilted viewpoints and sometimes malevolent politics must enter into the recipe. The opinions and domineering seem to flow more freely around the time of the year we call Earth Day (for those who aren’t hip, that would be April 22 every year). When politicking dominates the perspective of pure science on any day of the year, we all lose.

    In our combined 50 years of professional atmospheric and environmental science experience in government, academia, activism and consulting, we have observed a dichotomy between the real and the academic-bureaucratic worlds of environmental science.
    Scientists and engineers who work hands-on in the trenches with real-world environmental-science challenges on a daily basis are skeptical of claims of a substantial influence on global climate from human activity.

    Academicians who view the world from their computer screens, theories, limited field investigations and well-read published reports are not only true believers but avid promoters of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
    The academics, whose student and public admiration and financial well-being depend on an urgent topic, have a powerful incentive to focus on a simple human-produced cause and therefore a human-correcting solution to the incredibly complex challenge of global climate warming. This narrow focus limits the creativity so necessary to scientific discovery that truly resolves issues and serves society efficiently.

    Furthermore, because many students in general education are exposed only to superficial knowledge in science throughout their primary, secondary and college careers, such students as working, voting adults are relegated simply to trusting the consensus of experts on any even modestly complex science matter. For example, when the “lies, damn lies” and AGW statistics are proffered as proof that the Earth is warming because of the excesses of human comfort and that it will continue to do so if humans don’t immediately get less comfortable, the insufficiently educated or uninitiated must simply comply. Let us offer an alternative.

    We encourage everyone to begin to educate himself on this important topic by taking a look at the latest global temperature trend data through 2008. A good day to start your personal education might be Earth Day, and a good place to find the data of personal enlightenment is at the Web site of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC: * National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) *).
    Trend data will show you a continued drop in the average level for the world’s thermometers since 2005. Be assured that the AGW enthusiasts will still obsess that 2008 was one of the highest years on record. However, suppose you were to look at the data trend as if you were riding an amusement park’s roller coaster. Your perspective would be quite different depending on which side of the big hill you were on.

    What about bureaucrats? Government agencies with their technical and nontechnical personnel have an enormous responsibility. Such agencies must generate, carry out and oversee ostensibly the best available science to correct real environmental problems.
    By and large, government environmental agencies have performed a yeoman’s effort considering the monumental task. For instance, government pollution-control agents, interfacing with the general public and industries in their jurisdiction, live with the degree of reasonableness of government laws and regulations and perform admirably.

    But, here again, agencies and individual agents can become politicized. If so, the real will and benefit of the people may be usurped by a political program, pet project or personal infatuation masquerading as, say, a climate sickness with its attendant scientific solution - although the solution eventually is exposed as a very expensive cure for an illness that never existed.

    We have had a long history of earnest interest in the environment. On the first Earth Day in 1970, one of us biked to school with a sign proclaiming the day and later frequented outdoor environmental forums at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. We have actively participated in paid and volunteer environmental projects throughout our careers.

    Our serious interest in the environment, however, is not unreasonable concern. Much personal, professional and academic experience tells us there’s much more to be learned about the hugely complex climate system. And simple, politically motivated declarations of supposed climate facts and proposed solutions to dubious anthropogenic contributions to global warming will only abridge a full understanding of the biosphere and humans’ limited interference with its natural operation.

    A return to pure science and its very cautious association with politics, improved science education, and diligent generation and implementation of environmental regulations will make us all winners this Earth Day and beyond.
    Story Continues →
    View Entire Story‹‹ previous12next ››
    Like I said...politics and global warming have a lot in common and this thread is a (conceded small) sample of such relationship
    the "quality" of politics and politicians involved particularly in promoting "action" is appalling and their tactics worthy of a better cause. Lets add that when in the very near future the greens gravy train (and bike) raiders and the climate change bureaucrat get booted not a day too early they will probably struggle to find another activity and will most likely go back to their mud brick hut and green wood carving and night time arm chair lefties empty bla bla.

    Normal life will continue and we will wonder what was all that about.

    Meantime the Solar Panels produced in China at a cost of $23 and sold at $1800 with grand subsidy courtesy of the Labour Government will start to falter and their output drop by 50% going from a contribution of 0.0002% to 0.0001%.
    In ten years time the landfill will be starting to receive their spoils.

    What has politicians to do with this thread?
    A lot I'm afraid, and that is precisely the problem.
    After all the science is settled, so not possible to discuss that aspect anymore.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

Page 139 of 377 FirstFirst ... 39 89 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 189 239 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •