77931

Emission Trading and climate change

Page 150 of 377 FirstFirst ... 50 100 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 200 250 ... LastLast
Results 7,451 to 7,500 of 18819
  1. #7451
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Like rats off a sinking ship.

    Back off very quietly into the crowd and maybe no-one will notice we also bought the snake oil:

    Things are not going too well at Durban, or anywhere in the Land Where People Want to Change the Weather.
    Richard Black (BBC) admits there’s a “seismic shift” going on. (Could it be a tipping point I say?)
    “The politics of the UN climate process are undergoing something of a fundamental transformation. “
    It appears nearly anyone with power or influence wants to get out, or delay action on “climate change”.
    Canada announced it will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol next month, joining Japan and Russia who’ve ruled out commitments.
    The EU announced it won’t act if everyone else doesn’t:
    The 27-nation bloc said it accounts for about 11 percent of global emissions and that it can’t act alone on emissions blamed for damaging the environment.
    As far as Durban goes, most the rest of the major emitters want to delay things.


    The US, Russia and Japan were already arguing for a longer timeframe.
    To the anger of small islands states, India and Brazil have joined rich nations in wanting to start talks on a legal deal no earlier than 2015.

    Did I say the ship was sinking? Canada, Europe, Brazil, USA, Russia planning exits or delays « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax



    Hang on, there's one idiot rat paying a premium to get onto the sinking ship. Oh yeh, it's JuLIAR:


    Australia picks last possible moment to leap ONTO burning ship

    Gillard — the Australian Prime Minister — got the timing perfectly wrong.
    Within two weeks of the Carbon Tax finally becoming Law, it’s becoming hard not to notice that the whole Global Scam is fragmenting. This Carbon ship is on fire, the lifeboats are leaving, the rats are jumping, and the Australian team just turned up with the family jewels. Their policies are “take no prisoners” and “bring no life jackets”. Their exit plan is to have No Exit.
    Sergey Abramov (ship, 1960) ...By Leksey

    It’s hard to imagine how the timing could have been more quintessentially insane, or their “Leadership of Clean Energy” more poignantly inane.

    Australia picks last possible moment to leap ONTO burning ship « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax


    I'd laugh my @rse off, if it wasn't our tax dollars that she was paying the premium fare with.

    And remember now, ALL of Treasury's Carbon Dioxide Tax figures assume Global action similar in size and scope to ours.

    Do you feel sick yet?

  2. #7452
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,210

    Default

    CO2 is essential, increases historically proved to be good for humans.
    Religion is bad and historically proved to be the source of wars, dictatorship and loss of personal freedom.
    The anti CO2 religion has the worst of both world, an inane idea used to shift power towards the imbecile minority and curtail freedom.
    What is even more repugnant is the ecumenical tendency to embrace every demented idea into one big toxic soup.
    CO2 is baaaad, refugees are gooood, gay marriage is perfect, dredging, dams, irrigation, protecting agriculture, all very baaaad.
    Import anything from anywhere, including sharia law, very gooood. Mining baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad, selling uranium to India, perfect, censorship of dissenting scientific views, obligatory, data from sea level in Fort Denison showing one millimeter a year for the last 100 years. SUPPRESSED!!!!
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect
    Mark Twain

  3. #7453
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,210

    Default

    NSW government "censored" inconvenient sea level data | Australian Climate Madness

    NSW government "censored" inconvenient sea level data

    Thursday, 1 December 2011 20:08 pm · 29 comments
    by Simon

    A report on Channel 7′s news at 6pm this evening alleges that sea level data, showing rates of rise far lower than those projected, were censored to avoid conflicting with government policy on climate change.
    Sea levels at Fort Denison are rising at only 1mm per year or less, flatly contradicting the apocalyptic projections of the state and federal governments. Doug Lord, a global warming believer and coastal manager at the climate change department until February 2010, said “Both papers were accepted and at the last minute both were withdrawn on instructions from the department.”
    Angus Gordon, a coastal engineer, accused the department of a cover-up, and of suppressing the data in order to support the federal government’s position on climate change.
    If the allegations are true, none of this should come as any surprise, especially after the release last week of Climategate 2.0. It is the modus operandi of governments and alarmist scientists the world over, namely to censor or suppress dissent, or in this case data, which contradicts their pre-conceived agenda of dangerous global warming, and thereby giving them the freedom they need to mislead the electorate into accepting draconian and extreme climate change policies.
    There is little reason to doubt that these kinds of practices are commonplace, given the federal government’s desperation to convince the public of the “reality of climate change” and the need to take urgent action – hence the carbon tax.
    Once again, the integrity of climate science and its associated disciplines has been tarnished by political motivations and politically correct environmental agendas.
    [Note: as you will see from the YouTube clip, the report on 7 News was rather superficial - but typical for a network news bulletin - and contained significant ambiguities, in particular regarding the roles of the state/federal governments and the timeline of events, especially given the change of government in NSW earlier in the year. Hopefully further details will emerge.]



    Possibly related posts:

    Brace yourselves for even more alarmism

    Flannery fears "Norway-style attack"

    A lesson for climate scientists on "consensus"


    Tagged as: integrity of science, Sea level
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect
    Mark Twain

  4. #7454
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default JuLIAR encourages these LIES being told to Australians.

    The IPCC idealogues now openly admit to their LIES and deceipt.

    JuLIAR still pretends to Australians it is all real so that she can collect more TAXES!

    It has now become traditional for climate change summits to open with a new, dazzling prediction of impending catastrophe. The UN Climate Conference under way in the South African coastal town of Durban is no exception. This year’s focus is on a familiar and certainly arresting argument: that sea levels are rising at a catastrophic and unprecedented rate mainly due to man-made global warming.

    This is nonsense. The world’s true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president), not at the IPCC. Our research is what the climate lobby might call an ‘inconvenient truth’: it shows that sea levels have been oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries. This is not due to melting glaciers: sea levels are affected by a great many factors, such as the speed at which the earth rotates. They rose in the order of 10 to 11cm between 1850 and 1940, stopped rising or maybe even fell a little until 1970, and have remained roughly flat ever since.

    In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’

    This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong (whose record is contradicted by four other nearby tide gauges). Why does it show such a rise? Because like many of the 159 tide gauge stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it is sited on an unstable harbour construction or landing pier prone to uplift or subsidence. When you exclude these unreliable stations, the 68 remaining ones give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1mm a year.

    In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. That was last year: where are those refugees? And where are those sea level rises? The true facts are found by observing and measuring nature itself, not in the IPCC’s computer-generated projections.

    Nils-Axel Mörner was head of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University (1991-2005), president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003), leader of the Maldives sea level project (2000-11), chairman of the INTAS project on geomagnetism and climate (1997-2003).

    Rising credulity | The Spectator

    My fellow Australians, you have been lied to, and you have been conned. Do not feel bad if you fell for this hoax, as it has been spectacularly well funded and very deceptive.

    All because JuLIAR wants you to feel all green and fuzzy about paying more TAX for her to waste.

  5. #7455
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default History will show that it is number two.

    Easily the worst is number 2:

    What is the most stupid thing Labor has done these fours years?

    - apologise to a “stolen generation” no one can find?
    - impose a carbon dioxide tax that couldn’’t “stop” a global warming that hasn’t actually happened for a decade anyway?

    - bet more than $36 billion on building a national broadband network without even checking that the highly speculative benefits outweigh the enormous costs?
    - dismantle border protection laws that worked, leading to 12,000 more people coming, some 500 drowning and billions more dollars paid out in detention costs and welfare?
    Surely we live in the Age of Stupid when such colossally bad, irrational and damaging things can be done - and to the applause of so many journalists.

    Age of Stupid | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


    This ridiculous TAX will cripple our economy until it is revoked. The longer that takes, the more billions it will cost us to unravel.

    If you want scaremongering about your childrens children, then send them the bill.

  6. #7456
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It's sunk because a few rocked the boat!

    Dennis Shanahan notices a real change in the climate:
    It’s extraordinary that in less than two years the global political climate has changed so dramatically ... There has been a change in the atmosphere of reverence and optimism for climate change science and, more important, political will towards imposing national and international market solutions on economies of such a degree that the prospect of a global outcome is entirely reversed… Barack Obama ... two weeks ago demonstrated there was no way he was committing to the previous Democratic policy of a national cap-and-trade system while he faced inglorious defeat in the already-stressed US steel belt… Having won an exceptional victory on the back of an anti-carbon tax campaign, Stephen Harper’s conservatives in neighbouring Canada are about to confirm their position against carbon trading and formally refuse their commitment to any post-2012 Kyoto-style agreement on greenhouse gas emissions… Similarly, Japan, the home of the Kyoto agreement, and the US also are not committing to a post-2012 regime of greenhouse gas emissions… As NZ Prime Minister, (John) Key has been able to quietly ratchet back NZ Labour’s climate change scheme, limiting the coverage and intensity ... Spain has been Europe’s golden-haired boy on renewable energy and for years has turned hundreds of millions of euros into subsidies and tariff protections to encourage green industries and jobs… The new Spanish government has undertaken to axe subsidies for wind and solar power as part of its campaign against the debt crisis. Spain’s actions come as warnings emerge from financial houses in Europe that more than $270 billion have been wasted on European carbon trading without any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, with all this global retreat based on political doubts about climate change and the adverse economic effects on economies and consumers, the Australian government goes to Durban arguing we are not leading the world and not threatening Australia’s economic growth at a time of global downturn.
    Gillard goes where the rest of the world wisely fears to tread | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    It’s extraordinary that in less than two years the global political climate has changed so dramatically ...

    How did this happen so quickly? Because of a few good [S]men[/S] people (JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax)!

    From two years ago: 7th Oct 2009, 05:21 PM


    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    I am dead set againt the introduction of an ETS for several reasons. First even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures. Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit. Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim. Interested to know your thoughts? Cheers Rod
    In Rod we Trust!
    Last edited by Dr Freud; 3rd Dec 2011 at 04:40 PM. Reason: Can't forget Jo Nova!

  7. #7457
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More Flim Flammery.

    JuLIAR trusts this man's deluded and failed predictions to waste billions of our tax dollars:

    THIS column usually takes a look at the top 10 issues of the week as I see them. Thanks to Professor Tim Flannery, this week it will be different. On July 28th I received an email from a listener about Tim Flannery's waterfront property on the Hawkesbury. That week there had been much debate about the central and south coast being inundated by rising waters via climate change.
    About 30 minutes after the email, a neighbour of Flannery's, named David, confirmed that Flannery did in fact own the property.
    Earlier this week Flannery published a story that the caller "David" was an employee of mine and I had lined him up to come on my program to discredit him.
    The professor accused me of being a liar and concocting stories to get ratings.
    None of it was true but my critics went straight on the attack - most notably, that bastion of truth and justice, crikey.com.au.


    After the story was published, my motives and credibility were being questioned. I was angry and I was worried. How could I prove Flannery was, at the very least, misinformed? But at 11.40am on Wednesday, David phoned 2GB again and confirmed a number of things.
    1. He didn't know me and had never worked for me;
    2. Tim Flannery and his wife had turned up at his front door and confronted him about his appearance on my program;
    3. Tim Flannery had suggested the type of people who listened to my program were the same type of person who could commit mass murder, as happened in Norway a week earlier;
    4. David had never been encouraged or prevailed upon to talk to me;
    5. He simply phoned 131873 having heard an earlier email about the professor having a house on the river; and
    6. He could offer no explanation for Flannery's version of events.
    And to make up the rest of the items, let's clarify a few more things:
    7. Yesterday, Professor Flannery was claiming, although David had never really worked for me, he had actually "detailed" my car;
    8. Anyone who knows me well would know that I don't get my car detailed more than once every five years - and that's only after I've been abused by my wife about the state of it;
    9. David has never detailed my car; and
    10. I'm still waiting for an apology from both Professor Flannery and Crikey - I won't be holding my breath.
    But as it's a special occasion let's make it 11: It seems that Crikey has anointed itself as some form of Media Watch on steroids - self-appointed gatekeepers to hold us all to account.
    I just want to know who is watching the watchdog?

    Crikey, it's time to set the record straight Tim | thetelegraph.com.au


    At least we know where he stands on sea level rises. He stands right on the waters edge where he lives.

  8. #7458
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Joke!

    What a joke!

    What else could you call this farce that gets worse every day.

    Let's here from our good friend Dr Phil Jones who "lost" all his warming data:


    Phil Jones is not happy to hear the world may not warm as he’s said for so long. He suggests a form of words that might fool journalists into overlooking this inconvenient truth:


    >From: Phil Jones [mailto.jones@uea.ac.uk]
    >Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
    >To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
    >Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
    >Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
    >
    >
    > Tim, Chris,
    > I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting
    > till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
    > press release with Doug’s paper that said something like -
    > half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
    > record, 1998!
    Still a way to go before 2014.
    >
    > I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
    > where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
    > scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
    >
    > Chris - I presume the Met Office
    > continually monitor the weather forecasts.
    > Maybe because I’m in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems
    > a bit over the top re the cold. Where I’ve been for the last 20
    > days (in Norfolk)
    > it doesn’t seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
    >
    > I’ve just submitted a paper on the UHI for London - it is 1.6 deg
    > C for the LWC.
    > It comes out to 2.6 deg C for night-time minimums. The BBC forecasts has
    > the countryside 5-6 deg C cooler than city centres on recent nights.
    > The paper shows the UHI hasn’t got any worse since 1901 (based on St James Park
    > and Rothamsted).
    >
    > Cheers
    > Phil
    >

    This is not science. It’s propagandising.


    World doesn’t warm, warmists secretly work on “Plan B” | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

    Let's have a closer look at just some of this cr@p:

    I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.
    He actually "hopes" for catastrophic warming resulting in death and destruction, just to prove he was right. These people are maniacs.

    And why haven't we heard on the nightly news they predict NO WARMING until 2020.

    the language used in the forecasts seems a bit over the top re the cold. Where I’ve been for the last 20 days (in Norfolk) it doesn’t seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
    First, after massively ramping up the scaremongering rhetoric about "warming disasters", he tries to get the met office to tone down it's accurate and realistic description of record cold weather, just because it doesn't support "The Cause".

    Then our "we need decades of data to show a trend" scientist tries to use his personal experience of the weather over 20 days to justify his biased propaganda. What a joke.

    And JuLIAR cites this information when she says you need to pay more taxes. Is she so dumb that she hasn't even read or understood any of this?

    No. She is LYING again, and again, and again.

  9. #7459
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud, The Spectator and Prof Mörner View Post
    It has now become traditional for climate change summits to open with a new, dazzling prediction of impending catastrophe. The UN Climate Conference under way in the South African coastal town of Durban is no exception. This year’s focus is on a familiar and certainly arresting argument: that sea levels are rising at a catastrophic and unprecedented rate mainly due to man-made global warming.

    This is nonsense. The world’s true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president), not at the IPCC. Our research is what the climate lobby might call an ‘inconvenient truth’: it shows that sea levels have been oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries. This is not due to melting glaciers: sea levels are affected by a great many factors, such as the speed at which the earth rotates. They rose in the order of 10 to 11cm between 1850 and 1940, stopped rising or maybe even fell a little until 1970, and have remained roughly flat ever since.

    In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’

    This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong (whose record is contradicted by four other nearby tide gauges). Why does it show such a rise? Because like many of the 159 tide gauge stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it is sited on an unstable harbour construction or landing pier prone to uplift or subsidence. When you exclude these unreliable stations, the 68 remaining ones give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1mm a year.

    In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. That was last year: where are those refugees? And where are those sea level rises? The true facts are found by observing and measuring nature itself, not in the IPCC’s computer-generated projections.

    Nils-Axel Mörner was head of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University (1991-2005), president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003), leader of the Maldives sea level project (2000-11), chairman of the INTAS project on geomagnetism and climate (1997-2003).

    Rising credulity | The Spectator
    Rising incredulity more like it... Why would you need to tilt a graph when the observations confirm predictions and at the upper bounds from both the tide gauge data and satellite data? Maybe because you were a false sceptic?

    How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?

    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalscience
    What the science says...

    Observed sea levels are actually tracking at the upper range of the IPCC projections. When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.
    The two main contributors to sea level rise are thermal expansion of water and melting ice. Predicting the future contribution from melting ice is problematic. Most sea level rise from ice melt actually comes from chunks of ice breaking off into the ocean, then melting. This calving process is accelerated by warming but the dynamic processes are not strongly understood. For this reason, the IPCC didn't include the effects of dynamic processes, arguing they couldn't be modelled. In 2001, the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) projected a sea level rise of 20 to 70 cm by 2100. In 2007, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) gave similar results, projecting sea level rise of 18 to 59 cm by 2100. How do the IPCC predictions compare to observations made since the two reports?



    Figure 1: Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Allison et al 2009).Observed sea level rise is tracking at the upper range of model predictions. Why do climate models underestimate sea level rise? The main reason for the discrepancy is, no surprise, the effects of rapid flow ice changes. Ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers are accelerating. Even East Antarctica, previously considered stable and too cold, is now losing mass.
    Also:
    The Spectator runs false sea-level claims on its cover


    Stick to Politics Doc, you're better at that.

    woodbe.

  10. #7460
    Senior Member TermiMonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Age
    61
    Posts
    424

    Default

    I can't believe this thread is still going

  11. #7461
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,094

    Default

    I can't either, but the ostrich like mentality of the cult members is beyond belief. Proving the old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
    regards inter

  12. #7462
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Your argument is thinning, not the ice.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Why would you need to tilt a graph when the observations confirm predictions and at the upper bounds from both the tide gauge data and satellite data?
    At least it's good to see that you have stopped arguing about temperature going up astronomically due to human emissions. That's why you guys dropped the Anthropogenic Global WARMING (AGW) name and switched to Climate Change, wasn't it? To avoid the embarrasing focus on these farcical failures.

    But it is sad to see you still clinging to the scaremongering over catastrophic sea level increases, in spite of the numerous scientists now admitting the ocean level changes are perfectly normal and natural. I am happy to go through this in more statistical detail with you, but to assist our friendly tradies less enamoured with stats, here's a better comparison. As you said above "observations" are important, so observe this.

    Here's the ocean level over 100 years ago:



    Here's the ocean level today:



    Arrrrrgggghhh!!! Run for the hills...Fleeeeee while you still can.

    For anyone wanting their own reality check, take a really old local person to the beach and ask them how much shorter the drive was? How much closer has that ocean gotten in their time on the Planet Earth during industrialisation? There's two words that generally dispel most myths and cults - get real!


    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post


    Stick to Politics Doc, you're better at that.

    woodbe.
    I think I'll stick to reality, I'm better at that.

  13. #7463
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Another 2 years?

    Quote Originally Posted by TermiMonster View Post
    I can't believe this thread is still going
    Once we get rid of this ridiculous TAX for fresh air, I'm going back to beach volleyball. Assuming the beach is still there?

    Bugger this for a game of soldiers, but someone has to keep raising awareness as widely as possible of how corrupt and farcical this whole scam has been, resulting in Aussies paying more TAX, then shipping this out to the UN for doling out to corrupt regimes elsewhere.

    Hang in there champ, the rest of the world has already abandoned this cult, we should be following soon...

  14. #7464
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Lies!

    We already know Flim Flammery has taken all our taxpayer dollars and bought himself a nice waterfront property. Ironically, JuLIAR gave him heaps of our money for his scaremongering about rising ocean levels.

    Has anyone else stopped buying waterfront properties? Rudd just bought his, as did Combet. Looks like the markets still good:

    BONDI BEACH

    Property Summary

    Bedrooms: 3 Bathrooms: 3 Carspaces:
    2 Price: Priced from $2,950,000
    Property Type: Apartment / Unit / Flat Suburb: BONDI BEACH (profile) Region: Sydney Region


    Ah, good old reality!

  15. #7465
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The quantitative reason why Bondi Beach is still there.

    Here's what Rudd, Flannery and Combet already know, and why they still buy waterfront properties:

    Hiding the decline down under – inconvenient papers censored

    Posted on December 1, 2011 by Anthony Watts
    UPDATE: An Australian science paper I located from 1990 says that century scale sea level trends are 1-1.1 mm per year, and Sydney was 0.54 mm/ year. See below.
    UPDATE2: a graph of the current SLR for Sydney is now available. See below.

    From the Australian Telegraph:
    SENIOR bureaucrats in the state government’s environment department have routinely stopped publishing scientific papers which challenge the federal government’s claims of sea level rises threatening Australia’s coastline, a former senior public servant said yesterday.
    Doug Lord helped prepare six scientific papers which examined 120 years of tidal data from a gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour.
    The tide data revealed sea levels were rising at a rate of about 1mm a year or less – and the rise was not accelerating but was constant.
    “The tidal data we found would mean sea levels would rise by about 100mm by the end of the century,” Mr Lord said yesterday.
    “However the (federal) government benchmark which drives their climate change policy is that sea levels are expected to rise by 900mm by the end of the century and the rate of rise is accelerating.”
    Mr Lord, who has 35 years experience in coastal engineering, said senior bureaucrats within the then Department of Environment Climate Change and Water had rejected or stopped publication of five papers between late 2009 and September this year.
    Full story at: Australian Telegraph
    ================================================== =====
    This paper by E.A Bryant in 1990 at the University of New South Wales has some interesting things to say. http://ojs.library.unsw.edu.au/index...ewFile/166/228


    UPDATE2: David Archibald provides this graph of Sea Level Rise for Sydney, Ft. Dennison from the long term data. The .5 mm trend/year shown above in the 1990 Bryant paper still holds. There does not appear to be any evidence of acceleration.

    The NSW Govt. has a page for Fort Denison but you have to contact a data manager for the data: SYDNEY FORT DENISON Tide Gauge Data

    The censorship wall is crumbling. The facts are being revealed. The farce is over. The cult has been busted.

    As more and more people feel confident about speaking out about their treatment over previous years, the illusion of "consensus" will go the way of the dodo. It still amazes me that so many scientists allowed themselves to be so cowed by an alleged "consensus" rather than quantitative proof.

  16. #7466
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default We were duped by LIES!

    The music stopped and everyone else has a chair except for us.


    Other nations, including big greenhouse gas emitters, have no intention of following our kamikaze carbon tax lead.

    At the climate change confab which began in Durban, South Africa, last week, Australia's delegates reportedly tried to make a statement about our world-leading tax and were rejected. They had to wait till day two.


    The world has moved on and Australia sits like a shag on a rock, risking $100 billion on a gesture hardly anyone noticed.


    Newly prudent nations, including the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters, have no intention of following the kamikaze lead of Australia, which produces just 1 per cent of global emissions.



    Everyone but Australia has figured out we can no longer afford the luxury of empty gestures.


    And the latest batch of leaked climate scientists' emails, dubbed Climategate 2.0, confirm suspicions of something fishy about the global warming gravy train.


    The emails show eminent climate scientists conspiring to have PhDs stripped from sceptics, to have journal editors fired for publishing papers which contradict predictions of imminent apocalypse, and colluding with the media to slant coverage.


    This wasn't science. It was politics.



    Attempts to censor science, and silence an honest expert like Doug Lord, just reinforce our suspicions that the climate change industry is a big scam.

    Other nations, including big greenhouse gas emitters, have no intention of following our kamikaze carbon tax lead | thetelegraph.com.au

    Instead of shuffling the deck chairs, we can just shuffle our windmills instead as our country sinks.

  17. #7467
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More will speak out against this farce.

    David Murray, chairman of our Future Fund, thinks we’re not only strangled by tough workplace laws but threatened by global warming alarmism:

    ALI MOORE: Would you describe yourself as a climate sceptic?

    DAVID MURRAY: Ah, yes. A sceptic is not the word you should use when you disagree with somebody. You should say you disagree. And I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to take the sort of risks that are being taken around the world. I’ve always thought that with the global population growing as fast as it is, that there would be real pressure on energy prices and people would correct automatically by using energy much more sparingly and that would start to self-correct - if there’s a problem.

    ALI MOORE: So you don’t rule out there being a problem; you’re just not convinced there’s a problem.

    DAVID MURRAY: No, but with these things one looks at probability and severity. And you look for actions you can take which would reduce the severity if the problem is there. But if we’re not certain that the problem’s there, then we don’t - we shouldn’t take actions which have a high severity the other way.

    ALI MOORE: What evidence do you look at to counter the other evidence that there is climate change? Is there something in particular that you focus on?

    DAVID MURRAY: Well, the extremeness of the claims is one thing. For example, people talked about the ocean rising by seven metres, which is just an astounding level.
    ALI MOORE: But what about the more ...
    DAVID MURRAY: The science talks about 20 to 30 centimetres. So these exaggerated claims. When people make a movie and get on a ladder to get to the top of the chart, that’s Hollywood, it’s not science. And when scientists start arguing amongst themselves, as we’ve seen with some of these reports, that is not good. Science is meant to be above all of that with true scientific method. So that really bothers me. And the claims are unreal and ...
    ALI MOORE: Are all the claims unreal?

    DAVID MURRAY: Well, it’s not clear to me which comes first: temperature or carbon - carbon dioxide. I’m not sure which does come first. There is much evidence to say one way or the other. So, when I look at all this, I become extremely concerned and I become concerned at the cost of mistakes.
    Changing times, when a top business leader dares to be out and proud as a sceptic.

    Murray on the high price of heeding warming alarmists | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


    Well done Mr Murray!

    And here's why they won't interview me on Lateline:

    ALI MOORE: Would you describe yourself as a climate sceptic?

    DR FREUD: No Ali, there is a climate. This is a scientific fact. You can look it up if you don't believe me.

    ALI MOORE: So you don’t rule out there being a problem; you’re just not convinced there’s a problem.

    DR FREUD: Ali, science works on facts and evidence whereby any "problems" are quantified. I don't need to be "convinced" of any scientific facts. Would you care to describe for me exactly what "problem" it is you are referring to?

    ALI MOORE: What evidence do you look at to counter the other evidence that there is climate change? Is there something in particular that you focus on?

    DR FREUD: As I've already alluded to, the climate changes all the time. There is no counter to this, unless someone out there subscribes to "Climate Stagnation". I look at the same evidence everyone else also does and I focus on facts and reality, as opposed to conjecture and opinion.

    ALI MOORE: Are all the claims unreal?

    DR FREUD: It is difficult to answer such a broad question Ali, please provide me with a claim and I will tell you if it is a proven fact or conjecture, most likely based on flawed and failed computer models.



  18. #7468
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The LIES!

    Here's more good coverage of the sea level scaremongering:

    Australian sea level rises exaggerated by 8 fold (or maybe ten) « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

    This data shows the sea levels changing very naturally since about 1800, shortly after the little ice age ended in the mid 1700's.



    Now compare that to the delusional Hockey Stick farce that was manufactured to support "The Cause".



    In this Hockey Stick delusion, they tried to match a fictional massive temperature rise with industrialisation ramping up, so the temperature starts to spike in the 1920's.

    But riddle me this Batman, if temperature only started going up in the 1920's, what was causing the ocean's to rise for the 120 years prior to this, while the Hockey Stick showed temperature getting colder.

    You can ask your mate Gav at skepticalscience if you want. He's always happy to defend his failed Hockey Stick.

  19. #7469
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Here's more good coverage of the sea level scaremongering:

    Australian sea level rises exaggerated by 8 fold (or maybe ten) « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

    This data shows the sea levels changing very naturally since about 1800, shortly after the little ice age ended in the mid 1700's.
    Don't you just love December? The cherries ripen beautifully this time of year.



    woodbe.

  20. #7470
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Don't you just love December? The cherries ripen beautifully this time of year.



    woodbe.

    Not only that but they combine with nuts and become real fruitcakes.

  21. #7471
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,094

    Default

    La la la la la la la la la is pretty well what you fello's must hear & see when something which goes beyond your comprehension, like whats actually happened in the past verses what may happen conjured up by the sky is falling mob.
    regards inter

  22. #7472
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Q&A...not

    Question:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    But riddle me this Batman, if temperature only started going up in the 1920's, what was causing the ocean's to rise for the 120 years prior to this, while the Hockey Stick showed temperature getting colder.
    Answers?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Don't you just love December? The cherries ripen beautifully this time of year.

    woodbe.
    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Not only that but they combine with nuts and become real fruitcakes.
    If that's the best "answer" you can come up with, no wonder these cultish beliefs have been well and truly debunked!

  23. #7473
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Been there, done that.

    You've made this accusation many times and had it rebutted many times, but let's go again, just for those not bored with the facts.


    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Don't you just love December? The cherries ripen beautifully this time of year.

    woodbe.
    So again, you accuse me of cherry picking when I consistently post proxy data covering half a billion years, and regularly explain what has been happening on the Planet Earth for it's 4.5 billion years of existence.






    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post


    Comparison of two sea level reconstructions during the last 500 Ma. The scale of change during the last glacial/interglacial transition is indicated with a black bar. Note that over most of geologic history, long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today.

    Learn more here:

    Sea level - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    So the Planet Earth usually (and "naturally") has sea levels HUNDREDS OF METRES higher than todays, and you mob are scaremongering about a millimetre or so change per year.

    Now, the data time periods above were designed to test the validity of the farcical Hockey Stick delusion, and it obviously has failed again. And seeing as you obviously cannot answer the easy question about the failed Hockey Stick delusion and the sea level changes, let's try another easy one.

    Was it the coal, the cars or the cows that caused all the previous sea level changes over the last 500 million years?

    Or if you prefer a much more interesting question, where did all the water come from in the first place and when did it get here?

  24. #7474
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    The information that you are deliberately avoiding:

    * At any time when the sea level rose significantly in the past, the causes could not possibly have been associated with humans.
    * There is a large body of published scientific work based on multiple lines of investigation that shows that we humans are in fact influencing the climate.
    * These changes to the climate combined with natural variability are already having an impact on sea level.
    * This large body of scientific work has yet to be proven wrong using science. (opinion doesn't count, sorry doc)
    * None of this scientific work assumes that natural variability does not exist.
    * None of this scientific work declares that humans or CO2 are the sole driver of climate.
    * Humans were not around to observe any previous high sea level periods. We are right to be concerned.

    Lastly, just because the sea level was higher due to natural causes in the past, it does not then follow that any sea level change in the future can therefore only be due to natural causes. I know you get great pleasure from ridiculing science, but these changes do agree with predictions, and if the predictions continue to hold then there will be significant impact to low lying areas in the future.

    But you know all this, or would, if you read the science instead of every fake sceptic blog site.

    Here's a couple of recently published papers dealing with climate variability and the warming signal for you to start with:

    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105, 19 PP., 2011
    doi:10.1029/2011JD016263
    Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale

    Environmental Research Letters, Volume 6, Number 4.
    IOPscience - Global temperature evolution 1979

    woodbe

  25. #7475
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    The information that you are deliberately avoiding:

    I cant speak for others but these are some interesting points to ponder

    * At any time when the sea level rose significantly in the past, the causes could not possibly have been associated with humans.
    Yes there was billions of them millions of years ago each with a big bonfire which produced co2 which caused climate change
    * There is a large body of published scientific work based on multiple lines of investigation that shows that we humans are in fact influencing the climate.
    Yes man has influenced the climate by deforestation, pollution, particulates, ect, ect, ect, yet to be proven that co2 is only the culprit though.
    * These changes to the climate combined with natural variability are already having an impact on sea level.
    Yes by avoiding the projections which are in some cases 1000 % incorrect & by the real measurements being recorded & being suppressed by the vested interested pollys & associated parties.
    * This large body of scientific work has yet to be proven wrong using science. (opinion doesn't count, sorry doc)
    Yes must be right, concrete proof it has been proven, yet then it must be really hard gather a paper fax it off to prove that co2 is the climate change culprit & at these one person claim & collect an easy $10,000.
    * None of this scientific work assumes that natural variability does not exist.
    ??? depends what "this" is ?
    * None of this scientific work declares that humans or CO2 are the sole driver of climate.
    "This" again ???
    * Humans were not around to observe any previous high sea level periods. We are right to be concerned.
    First year geology to learn about previous sea levels, a bit like going down to the beach & seeing where the high tide mark was last night, what is your point here
    Lastly, just because the sea level was higher due to natural causes in the past, it does not then follow that any sea level change in the future can therefore only be due to natural causes. I know you get great pleasure from ridiculing science, but these changes do agree with predictions, and if the predictions continue to hold then there will be significant impact to low lying areas in the future.
    How can anybody ridicule the true data & facts of science, a few pollys & cult followers have been sprayed with their own ridiculous claims & opinions though.
    But you know all this, or would, if you read the science instead of every fake sceptic blog site.
    Funny how thats just about the exact opposite of what I have observed.

    Here's a couple of recently published papers dealing with climate variability and the warming signal for you to start with:

    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105, 19 PP., 2011
    doi:10.1029/2011JD016263
    Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale

    Environmental Research Letters, Volume 6, Number 4.
    IOPscience - Global temperature evolution 1979

    If a report cant be summarised into a couple of meaningfull paragraphs or a graph your just trying to baffle people with BS

    woodbe
    regards inter

  26. #7476
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    We get this continual reference to cults, especially directed to those who are inclined to believe the word of the various scientific bodies on climate change. Yet what proof really do we have of a cult.

    If you want evidence of cult leaders perhaps you need to look at those who wish to confer God like status on themselves. You need look no further than the disrespectful sacrilegious idiots who call themselves members of the holy trinity. For anyone who is not aware the holy trinity it is the term used for God the father, the son and holy ghost. The term used in that way is deeply offensive to those with Christian religious convictions and reflects badly on the moderators of this forum that is allowed.

    All it shows is a deep disrespect for the views and sensibilities of others and an inability to see outside their own myopic view of the world and themselves. Something we should all reflect on so close to Christmas.

    I would however agree with Inter on excessive detail, those who post endless lines of references and commentary are probably those who specalise in BS and are not really interested in the truth, and you need look no further than one member of that select little threesome to find the worst offender.

    We could all lighten up and show a bit more respect for others views, post less rubbish and behave in a more grown up manner, there is no need to emulate the Bolts of this world by pushing opinions ahead of facts.

  27. #7477
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    ??? depends what "this" is ?
    [..]
    "This" again ???
    Have another read inter, I am clearly referring to my second bullet point:

    * There is a large body of published scientific work based on multiple lines of investigation that shows that we humans are in fact influencing the climate.

    If a report cant be summarised into a couple of meaningfull paragraphs or a graph your just trying to baffle people with BS
    I see. the Too Many Notes defense. Thanks for reminding me about the simplicity of the science you need, I'll try and find something that suits you better next time. Not sure that it will help in your case, given your other responses, but always willing to try. I am encouraged that you accept that man is influencing the climate however, this is something a lot of opinion sceptics have great difficulty admitting. Well done.

    woodbe.

  28. #7478
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post

    If you want evidence of cult leaders perhaps you need to look at those who wish to confer God like status on themselves. You need look no further than the disrespectful sacrilegious idiots who call themselves members of the holy trinity. For anyone who is not aware the holy trinity it is the term used for God the father, the son and holy ghost. The term used in that way is deeply offensive to those with Christian religious convictions and reflects badly on the moderators of this forum that is allowed.
    The Holy Trinity title is part of the default vBulletin software, and when a member reaches that level or number of posts it occurs automatically.
    It has stuff all to do with the mods.

  29. #7479
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    In that case the software writers need to have a long hard look at themselves and grow up a bit.

  30. #7480
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    north queensland
    Posts
    206

    Default

    hahaha I never knew, Noel, I'd assumed some tradie cabal. Silly me, and I'll be ga-ga before I qualify.

  31. #7481
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    OK some people may feel anything more than two paragraphs and a graph is beyond their attention span but Mr Robert Manne is always readable and far better than wading through the disjointed meanderings of our most voiceiferous and repetitive members..


    How can climate change denialism be explained?

    Robert Manne
    For several decades I have engaged in ideological disputes.
    The first dispute involved a disagreement with the Left over the nature of communism. I found it difficult to understand how people of good heart were unable to see what was in front of everyone's nose: the disaster that communism had brought to the peoples of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China.
    The most recent involves a disagreement with the Right over global warming. I now find it difficult to understand how a person of reasonable intelligence is unable to accept the reality and the urgency of the looming climate crisis. With the Left and communism, the problem was indifference to a mountain of readily available evidence. With the Right and climate change, the problem is the unwillingness or incapacity to accept the truth of an argument of almost embarrassing simplicity.
    Let me outline the bare bones of that argument.
    For more than a century some scientists have believed that an increase in certain gases in the atmosphere - most importantly carbon dioxide (CO2) - would raise the temperature of the Earth. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution vast amounts of greenhouse gases have been released into the atmosphere. The temperature of the Earth has risen by 0.7 degrees Celsius. Even without any further greenhouse gas emissions, a further increase of 0.5C in global temperature is guaranteed.
    Despite one international attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - the Kyoto Protocol - these have continued to climb; last year, as we recently learnt, by an alarming amount. Almost all climate scientists and many governments accept that an increase in global temperature of 2C above pre-industrial levels is dangerous. According to the many models of the climate scientists, if human beings do not manage speedily to radically reduce and then eliminate the emission of greenhouse gases the temperature of the Earth will continue to rise by well beyond 2C and even up to 7C by 2100.
    There are tens of thousands of climate scientists researching and publishing throughout the world in scores of high-level scientific journals. The overwhelming majority believe that global warming is primarily caused by human activity. They believe that unless human beings change their behaviour, the Earth is headed for disaster: major sea-level rises rendering life intolerable for hundreds of millions in low-lying coastal regions; devastating droughts especially in sub-Saharan Africa; eventual massive water shortages in Asia through the disappearance of the Himalayan glacier system; the death of the great Brazilian forest; an increase in the number and/or intensity of floods, hurricanes, heat-waves and forest fires; the mass extinction of species, and so on.
    If only 50 per cent of climate scientists accepted the greenhouse gas theory of global warming, it would still be prudent to curb greenhouse gas emissions radically. There is, quite simply, so much at stake - nothing less than the future wellbeing of the Earth. Yet in fact virtually all the people with true understanding - the climate scientists - accept that, primarily through the continued burning of fossil fuels, human beings are placing the Earth at risk. Among these scientists moreover there exists no plausible alternative theory to explain global warming. Two studies have been conducted to assess the size of the scientific majority who accept and understand the reality of disastrous, humanly-caused global warming via the greenhouse gas hypothesis. Both studies arrived at the same figure: 97 per cent.
    This leads me to the subject of this piece: the mysterious rise of climate change denialism.
    Every time an article concerning the climate crisis appears somewhere in the United States, the United Kingdom or Australia, an army of climate change denialists emerges. For those who believe there is indeed a crisis - that is to say for those who accept the conclusions of the scientists and the implications of what they are telling us for the future of the Earth - they express nothing but suspicion, anger and contempt.
    The overwhelming majority of these people have not published in the field of climate science. Most, but not all, have no scientific education. And yet, somehow, they have come to believe that they understand better than the overwhelming majority of climate scientists - in the immortal words of one of the most consequential climate change denialists - that the greenhouse gas theory of global warming is "crap". Climate change denialists do not merely doubt the conclusions of the people who have studied and published in the field. They know that the climate scientists are wrong.
    It would be comforting to believe that the denialist army is composed of fools. This is simply not the case. Many of the denialists are accomplished and educated people. It would also be comforting to think that they represent a small island of unreason in an ocean of rationality, like people opposed to immunisation. This also however is not true. In the United States, for example, a clear majority do not believe in human-induced global warming. Indeed only 1 per cent of Americans now consider it their country's most urgent problem.
    How, then, is the existence of climate change denialism and indeed its increase in recent years to be explained? There seem to me five plausible hypotheses.
    1. The first concerns the influence of vested economic interest. Throughout the Western world there are many massive corporations whose fortunes are based on the sale of fossil fuels - coal, oil etc. If effective action is taken across the globe to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, on the grounds that they are imperilling the planet, these corporations have a lot to lose. Contrarily if they can find means to create doubt in the public mind about climate change science and therefore of its implications for the economic future of their companies, they have a great deal to gain. Putting a relatively small amount of money into one or another group capable of producing and disseminating climate change denialist propaganda makes complete economic sense.
    It does not even need to follow that the executives in the corporations who in the past funded this propaganda or who at present are still funding it - like Exxon-Mobil or the fossil fuel industry-based Koch brothers in the United States - are self-conscious cynics. Outright cynicism is probably less common than self-deceptive and self-serving rationalisation in matters of this kind. Nor is it the case that the loudest voices in the media preaching global warming denialism, like Rush Limbaugh in the United States and Andrew Bolt in Australia - who are influenced by the propaganda of the fossil fuel corporations and who then disseminate it - need to be paid for the services they provide. In general, these kind of ideological "true believers" simply play the role of the "useful idiots" of the fossil fuel corporations. The classic study of this phenomenon is Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway's Merchants of Doubt.
    2. The second hypothesis helping to explain the contemporary profile of climate change denialism relates to the role played by the mass media. In recent weeks, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford has published a fascinating study - James Painter's Poles Apart: The international reporting of climate scepticism. In it, the climate change coverage of high-quality newspapers in six countries - the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Brazil - is analysed. There are three main conclusions. First, climate change "scepticism" (what I prefer to call "denialism") is far more common in the newspapers of English-speaking countries than in the papers of the others countries studied. Second, climate change scepticism was particularly prominent in editorials and opinion pieces in the press of these two countries. And third, in the countries studied, right-leaning newspapers, like the Wall Street Journal, are far more likely to publish denialist material than left-leaning newspapers, like the New York Times. At the recent launch of Poles Apart at Durban, the dreadful performance of the Australian press in regard to climate change reportage was mentioned, something that recently both Wendy Bacon and I have recently written about.
    Three conclusions can be drawn from all this. In the US, UK and Australia, in recent times, the media has played a major role in legitimising climate change denialism. In these three countries the media has amplified or facilitated the work of the many climate denialist "think tanks", fossil fuel industry lobbyists and denialist bloggers. And in all these three countries, the influence of the Murdoch media is profound - in Australia with 70 per cent of the major newspaper circulation; in the UK, with The Times and The Sun; and in the US with the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and, above all else, the immensely influential Fox News. Not only do the Murdoch media preach climate change denialism directly throughout the English-speaking world. News Corp also provides this kind of anti-science irrationalism with a kind of faux-respectability that allows its influence to permeate gradually other non-Murdoch-owned organs of the right-leaning and even the centrist media. One of the reasons climate change denialism is strong and growing in the Anglosphere and rather weak in both Europe and the developing world is the different role played by their respective media.
    3. To be effective, the roles played in the rise of climate change denialism by fossil fuel corporation propaganda and the right-wing mass media probably required some overarching ideological rationalisations. One rationalisation was discovered in the idea central to Anglosphere neoconservatism - the corrosive influence supposedly played by the anti-Western, anti-American mindset of the cosmopolitan elites, known since the early 1990s as "political correctness". Another was discovered in neoliberal suspicions about the collectivist, social engineering and anti-capitalist instincts of the left-leaning intelligentsia.
    Until the emergence of the climate change crisis, neoconservatives and neoliberals were mainly concerned with resisting collectivist economics or changes of attitude since "the sixties" to racial and gender relations. Indeed, until that time they were generally the defenders of the values of the Enlightenment - traditional education and science.
    Following the coming of the climate crisis everything changed. The neoconservatives and the neoliberals in the media, politics, the think tanks and the academy applied their ideas about the corrosive influence of political correctness and collectivism to a group they had hitherto staunchly defended against the attacks of relativistic "deconstructionists" and "postmodernists" - the scientists. Or at least, to put it more precisely, they extended their analysis to one branch of scientists - those who specialised in analysis of the climate. When the climate scientists began pointing out the urgent need to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, the neoconservatives and neoliberals decided that these scientists were little better than the "tenured radicals" in the humanities faculties of the universities who deployed their so-called scholarship to undermine the free market or traditional Western values. Their science was dubious. They perverted the peer review process. They suppressed dissenting voices. They engaged in research they knew to be fraudulent - "climategate" - for the sole purpose of winning lucrative research grants from the "nanny state".
    In this campaign, the Right dispensed with even minimal commitment to logic. The government that awarded the most money for climate research - the United States - was also the government most resistant to taking action on climate change. The enemies of the scientists also engaged in ideological labelling. The scientists who expressed alarm at the inescapable conclusions of their research became "alarmists". Those citizens who accepted the key conclusion of the climate scientists - that primarily because of the burning of fossil fuels the Earth is heating up - became "warmists". Required to choose between the interests of the fossil fuel corporations or the conclusions of the climate scientists, with barely a moment's thought, the ideologues of the Right backed the interests of the corporations.
    4. Ideologues only feel comfortable when they hunt in packs. Within a remarkably short time, almost all anti-political correctness and anti-collectivist ideologues became climate change denialists. Nonetheless, it would be quite misleading to argue that all leading climate change denialists are neoconservatives and neoliberals. As Clive Hamilton has pointed out, there is a certain kind of individual who is offended by the conclusions of the climate scientists. For such people - frequently ageing white males of science, engineering and technology backgrounds - the conclusions of the climate scientists are experienced as a shock, as a challenge, but most deeply of all as an affront to their deepest and most cherished basic faith: the capacity and indeed the right of "mankind" to subdue the Earth and all its fruits and to establish a "mastery" over nature. I use these words advisedly. The conclusions of the climate scientists suggested a problem with this generally free-thinking, secular, pro-capitalist faith.
    The people I have in mind were the kind who had mercilessly mocked the once-fashionable idea that there might ultimately be "limits to growth". They are the kind of people who had vigorously and sometimes successfully disputed claims about the eventual depletion of natural resources or theories like "peak oil". Now they were faced with scientists who had arrived at the conclusion that there was something even more fundamentally amiss in the process of the industrial revolution itself - namely, that the decision to provide the energy for industrialisation by burning fossil fuels was possibly the most consequential, although perfectly innocent, misstep human beings had ever taken. Within the mindset of the engineers and geologists, such a thought is not merely mistaken. It is intolerable and deeply offensive. Those preaching this doctrine have to be resisted and indeed denounced.
    For such people - in Australia, one thinks of Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, William Kininmonth - the struggle against climate science is both urgent and existential. They are fighting to preserve life-long beliefs which have provided them with comfort and with meaning. In the fight against the climate scientists, they have proved to be important allies of the anti-political correctness and anti-collectivist ideologues, the right-wing media and the fossil fuel corporations.
    5. The leaders of the denialist campaign are however not whistling in the dark. The message they are selling is popular. The reason is reasonably straightforward. The majority of people in Western countries live now in a state of material comfort beyond the imaginings of all previous generations. Who amongst us would not prefer to believe that there are indeed no limits to the material comforts we may enjoy? Who would not prefer to believe that this level of material comfort will go on expanding forever? To take the conclusions of the climate scientists seriously is to embrace the need for massive economic change and even for possible economic sacrifice. If the influence of the climate change denialists is growing the most important reason is that they are telling people what they most wish to hear. In his book Requiem for a Species, Clive Hamilton makes an entirely unnerving suggestion. Perhaps it is the character type that flourishes under the conditions of consumer capitalism that presents the primary obstacle to taking action on climate change. Faced by an apparent choice between the continuation of our lifestyle and the wellbeing of our planet, perhaps it is the continuation of our lifestyle that in the end we will decide to choose.
    In helping us to make this choice, the denialists have played an important role. For they have been able to convince many people that to choose this way is not irresponsible or immoral or insane - a choice for which future generations will curse us - but represents, rather, sweet reason and merest common sense. Recently I read an interesting World Bank survey of international public opinion on the question of climate change. What it revealed, broadly speaking, was that the poorer the country, the more likely are its people to believe in the reality of dangerous human-caused climate change. While 31 per cent of Americans and 38 per cent of Japanese thought climate change was a very serious problem, 75 per cent of Kenyans and 85 per cent of Bangladeshis did. Those who do have reason to fear climate change but have little to lose in the curbing of emissions are the people who believe in what the climate scientists are telling them. Those who do not at present fear climate change but recognise they have a lot to lose by tackling it have simply and conveniently ceased to believe what they hear.
    The meaning of all this seems clear. Citizens of the consumer society are unwilling to risk the loss of any of their comforts. However they wish to feel good about themselves. The climate change denialists - the lobbyists and propagandists of the fossil fuel corporations; the right-wing commentariat in the blogosphere and the media; the anti-political correctness and anti-collectivist ideologues in the think tanks and the academy; the angry older generation of engineers and geologists - offer them the alibi for doing nothing they so desperately need.
    This article was first published on The Left, Right, Left blog for The Monthly.
    Robert Manne is Professor of Politics at La Trobe University.

  32. #7482
    Daniel Morgan
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    and far better than wading through the disjointed meanderings of our most voiceiferous and repetitive members..
    Like Johnc and Geno62.

  33. #7483
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    north queensland
    Posts
    206

    Default

    A few more hundred pages I might be convinced, though having been married to a university professor of physics for 40 years it'd take a heap of convincing us, and he's dead now. good luck with that. grins

  34. #7484
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guest
    Like Johnc and Geno62.


  35. #7485
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,094

    Default

    Johnc in regards to your long winded post #7481 this exactly the stuff which i'm referring to, pure waffle, just opinions about opinions & its only good use would be to be donated to a poorer country for making some useful dunny paper out of it.
    regards inter

  36. #7486
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post

    I see. the Too Many Notes defense. Thanks for reminding me about the simplicity of the science you need, I'll try and find something that suits you better next time. Not sure that it will help in your case, given your other responses, but always willing to try. I am encouraged that you accept that man is influencing the climate however, this is something a lot of opinion sceptics have great difficulty admitting. Well done.

    Just because some poor Phd student or researcher has had to document 20,000 words + for their thesis or scientific paper there is no real need to go down that path, the crux of their finding/s can be summarised quite easily with simple graphs & words, the complicated background is purely for proving their findings for the highly specialised & skilled academics in that field.
    .
    regards inter

  37. #7487
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    In that case the software writers need to have a long hard look at themselves and grow up a bit.
    jealous much -

  38. #7488
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    jealous much -
    Perhaps. But you do have the choice of demonstrating obediance and fealty with the unimaginative Default Nomenclature (A Member of the Holy Trinity) or forging your own identity....

    ...as for the thread...I have nothing to add at this time.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  39. #7489
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Just because some poor Phd student or researcher has had to document 20,000 words + for their thesis or scientific paper there is no real need to go down that path, the crux of their finding/s can be summarised quite easily with simple graphs & words, the complicated background is purely for proving their findings for the highly specialised & skilled academics in that field.
    I don't think I've ever posted huge quotes here, have I?

    I did post some links to recently published papers. I suspect you've never read one due to your fear of reading too many words. Fear not though, any paper I have read contains an Abstract which is the short summary you probably wish for but didn't know already existed.

    Have a look:
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105, 19 PP., 2011
    doi:10.1029/2011JD016263
    Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale <-- Click this one, it's the link to the paper.

    See where it says "Abstract" under the list of Authors? That's the bit you want, it's like a summary of the paper for those readers interested but perhaps short of time or attention span.

    Pretty clever, huh? I guess they've been doing science publishing for a while, so they've fine tuned the format to suit as large an audience as possible.

    You're welcome.

    woodbe.

  40. #7490
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Perhaps. But you do have the choice of demonstrating obediance and fealty with the unimaginative Default Nomenclature (A Member of the Holy Trinity) or forging your own identity....

    ...as for the thread...I have nothing to add at this time.
    I do both, as and when it suits me

  41. #7491
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I don't think I've ever posted huge quotes here, have I?

    I did post some links to recently published papers. I suspect you've never read one due to your fear of reading too many words. Fear not though, any

    Too right about not reading your links, I'm just clever enough to not get sucked into some obscure trifling waffle, if anything in your post was in the least bit interesting or important it would have been broadcast far, wide & loud by the alarmists long ago to spread their propaganda.

    See where it says "Abstract" under the list of Authors? That's the bit you want, it's like a summary of the paper for those readers interested but perhaps short of time or attention span.

    You have me on both points there.

    Pretty clever, huh? I guess they've been doing science publishing for a while, so they've fine tuned the format to suit as large an audience as possible.

    Yes the really really clever important people read the summary first to find out what is actually being claimed or said, then see what backs it up, because they are really short of time & have really short attention spans for the insignificant.



    woodbe.
    regards inter

  42. #7492
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Still believing computer fairy stories after all this time.

    I thought you had learned some time ago that some greenies programming their assumptions into psychic computer models were not reality. Were the pictures of the beach in "reality" too confronting? You nearly had me fooled that you now relied on observations of "reality" as opposed to "adjusted data" and "psychic computers". Oh well, back to the computerised fairy stories for you...


    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    The information that you are deliberately avoiding:
    Let's rebut this nonsense again, because the Durban talks killed this farcical cult deader than a dodo anyway, so we may as well rehash the old myths.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    * At any time when the sea level rose significantly in the past, the causes could not possibly have been associated with humans.
    So what caused all the rises and falls then, and are there any patterns that repeat, or are these changes always changing, naturally?

    Then after you can guarantee ALL of this causality an interactivity (much of this I have covered previously), then we can begin trying to rule them. No, not with psychic computers and assumptions as the cult claims is "the science", but with something us old fashioned people call "evidence".

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    * There is a large body of published scientific work based on multiple lines of investigation that shows that we humans are in fact influencing the climate.
    Farts influence the climate. Not just human ones. Dinosaurs had massive farts. If you need a "large body of published scientific work based on multiple lines of investigation" before you believe this, then too bad. It's always been a question of how much?

    Here's a scientific fact:

    There is zero scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.


    I have posted this dozens of times and no-one has ever presented a single piece of evidence?

    Why so quiet? Why so secret? Are you trusting the cult leaders who say they have it?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    * These changes to the climate combined with natural variability are already having an impact on sea level.
    Nice assumption. Pity you have no proof. Maybe if you answered my question about how the sea level started rising 120 years before the temperature rises, according to your own high priests of the IPCC? This IPCC data suggests that sea levels are already having an impact on temperature? I know time dilates, but your contiguity is all screwed up, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    * This large body of scientific work has yet to be proven wrong using science. (opinion doesn't count, sorry doc)
    You can't prove a psychic computer predicting the temperature 100 years into the future wrong, until 100 years into the future. All psychic computer failures to date are well documented, as are the failed psychic predictions of the high priests of this cult. As for all cults, the just keep resetting the doomsday dates, and the natural temperature rises out of the last Little Ice Age continue uninterrupted by us insignificant fearful bipedal Carbon units.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    * None of this scientific work assumes that natural variability does not exist.
    No, it assumes everything else, these makes psychic computer models based on these assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    * None of this scientific work declares that humans or CO2 are the sole driver of climate.
    How many of them give a factual percentage of contribution of either?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    * Humans were not around to observe any previous high sea level periods.
    Lucky we burned all that stuff to create the technology to give us proxy data, huh?

    Otherwise we wouldn't know we were about to kill an entire Planet by farting too much.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    We are right to be concerned.
    About what?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I know you get great pleasure from ridiculing science
    Wrong. Science gave us the great understanding and technology that drives humanity to continued greatness. I ridicule cults masquerading as science. Especially when run by belligerent fascientists getting fat on a gravy train that Aussie taxpayers are being ripped off to fund.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    but these changes do agree with predictions, and if the predictions continue to hold then there will be significant impact to low lying areas in the future.
    You may have missed the pictures of Bondi. I thought it was self evident, but this beach (like a lot of them) is what you may refer to as "low lying". Others call it sea level.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    But you know all this, or would, if you read the science instead of every fake sceptic blog site.
    I have read a lot of the science in this area, and most of it is assumptions, "adjusted" data and computer models. Every single fact in this area of science indicates a natural change from the end of the last Little Ice Age.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Here's a couple of recently published papers dealing with climate variability and the warming signal for you to start with:

    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105, 19 PP., 2011
    doi:10.1029/2011JD016263
    Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale

    Environmental Research Letters, Volume 6, Number 4.
    IOPscience - Global temperature evolution 1979
    WOW! Computer models and "adjusted" data, all based on many unproven assumptions. Who would have thought.

    At least Yom Kippur, Good Friday and Ramadan are overt expressions of deprivation from the three main monotheistic religions.

    The UNFCCC COP hedonistic and decadent ceremonies while asking us peasants to tithe under the banner of "the science" is an insult to both religion and science.

  43. #7493
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Your scientific evidence is overwhelming!

    So many scientific facts to rebut, where do I begin.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    We get this continual reference to cults, especially directed to those who are inclined to believe the word of the various scientific bodies on climate change. Yet what proof really do we have of a cult.
    I have already posted the definition and explanation justifying the terms use. Use the search function and you can read all about it.

    Here's proof from yourself, just in case you don't believe me:

    "those who are inclined to believe the word...do we have of a cult"



    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    If you want evidence of cult leaders perhaps you need to look at those who wish to confer God like status on themselves. You need look no further than the disrespectful sacrilegious idiots who call themselves members of the holy trinity. For anyone who is not aware the holy trinity it is the term used for God the father, the son and holy ghost. The term used in that way is deeply offensive to those with Christian religious convictions and reflects badly on the moderators of this forum that is allowed.
    I take it you didn't like The Matrix?

    The name "Trinity" is heavily associated with Christian theology, which involves the Holy Trinity: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When she cracked the IRS database before her release from the Matrix, she chose the alias of Trinity as a hacker, to imply that she is as enigmatic as trying to grasp the concept of a "Three-In-One Being."[2] Trinity is the force who guides Neo to his "salvation," as well as commanding Neo to rise up from his apparent death in the first film, implying a further parallel between her character and God.[3]

    Trinity (The Matrix) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    All it shows is a deep disrespect for the views and sensibilities of others and an inability to see outside their own myopic view of the world and themselves. Something we should all reflect on so close to Christmas.
    So, you go from calling people "disrespectful sacrilegious idiots" via total ignorance, then assume everyone on the Planet Earth places as much religious context to "Christmas" as you do?

    And they have the "myopic view of the world", huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    I would however agree with Inter on excessive detail, those who post endless lines of references and commentary are probably those who specalise in BS and are not really interested in the truth, and you need look no further than one member of that select little threesome to find the worst offender.
    I think you have shown extreme disrespect to polygamists by using the term "threesome" in such a derogatory manner. How disrespectful.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    We could all lighten up and show a bit more respect for others views, post less rubbish and behave in a more grown up manner, there is no need to emulate the Bolts of this world by pushing opinions ahead of facts.
    We still live in a relatively free world. The current Commie government is shutting down free speech more and more every day, but until they do, there's nothing wrong with anyone giving their opinion. I'm always happy to let you know the difference between facts and opinions, just let me know if you're not sure.

  44. #7494
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I think Intertd6 said it best.

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post

    If a report cant be summarised into a couple of meaningfull paragraphs or a graph your just trying to baffle people with BS

    regards inter
    Very true. Parsimony. Hence the Null.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post

    I see. the Too Many Notes defense. Thanks for reminding me about the simplicity of the science you need, I'll try and find something that suits you better next time. Not sure that it will help in your case, given your other responses, but always willing to try. I am encouraged that you accept that man is influencing the climate however, this is something a lot of opinion sceptics have great difficulty admitting. Well done.

    woodbe.
    I think this bloke agrees with Intertd6, not you Woodbe:


    • “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” ~ Albert Einstein


    • “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” ~ Albert Einstein

  45. #7495
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Thanks big fella.

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    The Holy Trinity title is part of the default vBulletin software, and when a member reaches that level or number of posts it occurs automatically.
    It has stuff all to do with the mods.
    Thanks for deflecting that undeserved criticism. I much prefer the more deserved criticism I usually get.

  46. #7496
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Very insulting.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    In that case the software writers need to have a long hard look at themselves and grow up a bit.


    There's a pic below from when I tried to talk some sense into the software writers. They said you were being very insensitive asking them to grow up a bit, that's as big as they get.


    They said you shouldn't be so disrespectful to little people. And they tried to take a long hard look at themselves, but those damn chippies keep putting the full height vanity in, so they can't see the mirror.




  47. #7497
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Unrebuttable?

    The weight of scientific evidence in this was overwhelming:

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    How can climate change denialism be explained?
    His grasp on the evidence and scientific facts in this area is remarkable!

    Why then is he so reluctant to debate the facts?




    It’s billed as “Robert Manne vs. Tim Flannery”.


    I thought “vs” indicated a contest, not a group hug. No wonder only a couple of dozen people at the campus were interested enough to come watch “Australia’s leading public intellectual” and our leading climate alarmist.


    Manne starts by saying he only began to read “very seriously” about climate change on “a very hot summer’s day” a few years ago - and it was Flannery’s Weather Makers he turned to. This is a grim foretaste of the quality of the “debate” that follows and the evidence on which the mutual apocalyptus is based.


    Flannery complains about the “hate” allegedly being whipped up in the media against warmists but speaks approvingly of sceptics being “shouted down” at his public meetings. Both agree completely that the fact there is a debate is a sigh of toxicity and it’s my fault.


    Manne says he’s “drifitng towards” a theory that Big Oil and Big Coal have created this debate with their “seed money” - which is perilously close to suggesting that people like me have had their opinions bought. Yes, this is the same man complaining about a “toxic” debate, character assassination and a refusal to examine the science. Flannery, who has made a terrific living from climate alarmism, agrees that many sceptics profit from their scepticism.


    I’m mentioned so often by the two alarmists that I wonder why they didn’t simply invite me along to have the debate they’d promised.

    What they call a “debate” in warmist circles | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


    Real bravado, firing on a one way range.

  48. #7498
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    I'll just leave this here as I know Doc is such a big fan.
    TEDxPSU - Michael Mann - A Look Into Our Climate: Past To Present To Future - YouTube!

  49. #7499
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    Here's a scientific fact:

    There is zero scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.
    That's denier logic right there. There are no absolutes possible in this statement. Here is the real fact:

    The body of science supporting AGW hypothesis has yet to be disproven.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe
    * None of this scientific work assumes that natural variability does not exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud
    No, it assumes everything else, these makes psychic computer models based on these assumptions.
    Nice try. Any reputable study factors in all inputs, including where appropriate, natural variability. Fake Sceptics love to say it's natural variability and play on the ignorance of the public whether natural variability has been accounted for.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud
    How many of them give a factual percentage of contribution of either?
    How many of them don't?

    WOW! Computer models and "adjusted" data, all based on many unproven assumptions. Who would have thought.
    Proof that you haven't read (or perhaps understood) them. These claims that scientists collude, falsify data and change it to suit their needs are unsupported by any scientific investigation. Sorry Doc, Bolt is not a scientist and does not do scientific investigation.

    But hey, Sceptics don't need science, do they?

    Cheers,

    woodbe.

  50. #7500
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    If a report cant be summarised into a couple of meaningfull paragraphs or a graph your just trying to baffle people with BS
    Alternatively, if it can be summarised into a couple of meaningfull paragraphs and a graph and you were presented with that....then wouldn't you wonder what information was witheld or simply cut as an expediency? Especially if there was the presumption that the audience wasn't sufficiently well informed to actually handle the full story?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

Page 150 of 377 FirstFirst ... 50 100 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 200 250 ... 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
  •