Emission Trading and climate change

Page 230 of 377 FirstFirst ... 130 180 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 280 330 ... LastLast
Results 11,451 to 11,500 of 18819
  1. #11451
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    The debate is over, the consensus is universal ... or is it?

    Below is a quote from famous Gaia theory author and climatologist, James Lovelock.

    "I made a mistake."
    - "The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing." - "We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened." - "There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world." - "[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that."
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  2. #11452
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post

    The dictionary definition of "significant" that you gave works just fine - there is no need to re-interpret anything.
    So it appears its not me where the interpretation problem is! But that has been glaringly obvious for a long while!
    regards inter

  3. #11453
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Is that a rhetorical question?

    If not then...I think you are all something. Really something.
    You must be an extremely close companion of his to know what he thinks & to answer for him.
    regards inter

  4. #11454
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default


    THE HOCKEY SCHTICK

    If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause...
    Sunday, July 27, 2014

    Why the IPCC exaggerates greenhouse warming of the oceans by at least 2.5 times

    A new paper
    finds the deep oceans have cooled contrary to alarmist claims of deep ocean warming by Trenberth's "missing heat" from carbon dioxide. Trenberth's theory, one of at least 14 excuses for the ~18 year 'pause' of global warming, now appears to be dead in the water.

    Data from the new paper can be used to derive that the world's oceans have warmed only about 0.008°C over the past 19 years from 1992-2011, and imply that the IPCC exaggerates net greenhouse forcing on the oceans by at least a factor of 2.5 times.

    According to the author Dr. Carl Wunsch, one of the world's most respected oceanographers,
    "A total change in [world ocean] heat content, top-to-bottom, is found (discussed below) of approximately 4 × 10^22 Joules in 19 years, for a net heating of 0.2±0.1 W/m2, smaller than some published values (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005, 0.86±0.12 W/m2 ; Lyman et al., 2010, 0.63±0.28 W/m2; or von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011, 0.55±0.1 W/m2; but note the differing averaging periods), but indistinguishable from the summary Fig. 14 of Abraham et al. (2013). Perhaps coincidentally, it is similar to the 135-year 700 m depth ocean rate of 0.2±0.1 W/m2 of Roemmich et al. (2012)."

    Read the whole article here:
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au...e-forcing.html

    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  5. #11455
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bob View Post
    If you guys want the thread kept, then I'd suggest you clean up all your posts by getting rid of all the defamatory trolling and all the crap that's been copied from other sources which doesn't have self created content. Please use links instead of copying others work.

    Thanks Bob.
    Hint for Marc.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  6. #11456
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    I read that paper. Can't say I came to the same conclusion as the blogger's...

    The paper certainly didn't set out to shoot down the ocean warming evidence. Seems to me that someone else has been thinking liberally with the limited data within the paper and forming their opinions.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  7. #11457
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    A new paperfinds the deep oceans have cooled contrary to alarmist claims of deep ocean warming by Trenberth's "missing heat" from carbon dioxide. Trenberth's theory, one of at least 14 excuses for the ~18 year 'pause' of global warming, now appears to be dead in the water.

    Data from the new paper can be used to derive that the world's oceans have warmed only about 0.008°C over the past 19 years from 1992-2011, and imply that the IPCC exaggerates net greenhouse forcing on the oceans by at least a factor of 2.5 times.
    No, the paper does NOT find anything that substantiates or even vaguely supports the claims you have parroted.

    "Over the 20 years of the present ECCO state estimate, changes in the deep ocean on multiyear time-scales are dominated by the western Atlantic basin and Southern Oceans. These are qualitatively consistent with expectations there of the comparatively rapid response to surface forcing.

    "A very weak long-term cooling is seen over the bulk of the rest of the ocean below that depth (2000 m), including the entirety of the Pacic and Indian Oceans, along with the eastern Atlantic Basin. The pattern below 3600 m is similar, with much smaller amplitude.

    "Direct determination of changes in oceanic heat content over the last 20 years are not in conflict with estimates of the radiative forcing..."

    Read it for yourself: http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papers...dec2013_ph.pdf

  8. #11458
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    No, the paper does NOT find anything that substantiates or even vaguely supports the claims you have parroted.
    "Over the 20 years of the present ECCO state estimate, changes in the deep ocean on multiyear time-scales are dominated by the western Atlantic basin and Southern Oceans. These are qualitatively consistent with expectations there of the comparatively rapid response to surface forcing.

    "A very weak long-term cooling is seen over the bulk of the rest of the ocean below that depth (2000 m), including the entirety of the Pacic and Indian Oceans, along with the eastern Atlantic Basin. The pattern below 3600 m is similar, with much smaller amplitude.

    "Direct determination of changes in oceanic heat content over the last 20 years are not in conflict with estimates of the radiative forcing..."

    Read it for yourself: http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papers...dec2013_ph.pdf
    NEWS FLASH! Different experts / institutions have differing explanations of the findings!
    who would have thought it was possible?
    regards inter

  9. #11459
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    NEWS FLASH! Different experts / institutions have differing explanations of the findings!
    who would have thought it was possible?
    It is possible for different experts to interpret observations differently, and why peer review in science is so important. Who wudda thort?

    If you went to the source and read the original research paper and then read the "report" linked by Marc you would conclude that has NOT what happened here. Hint: scientific research isn't progressed by ideological blogs...

    What has happened is an anonymous blogger has pounced on some words in a contextual vacuum and used them to make a ridiculous claim to suit his/her own ideological mantra.

    It is like saying: "The thermometer was read in Timbuktu yesterday and it was colder than the day before - NEWS FLASH - The World Is Cooling!!!!"

  10. #11460
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Inter is correct, however this is not a matching of equivalent experts and institutions. More a case of a mismatch between non-experts versus experts; political/ideological blogs versus published science; echo chamber versus scientific process.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  11. #11461
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    It is possible for different experts to interpret observations differently, and why peer review in science is so important. Who wudda thort?

    If you went to the source and read the original research paper and then read the "report" linked by Marc you would conclude that has NOT what happened here. Hint: scientific research isn't progressed by ideological blogs...

    What has happened is an anonymous blogger has pounced on some words in a contextual vacuum and used them to make a ridiculous claim to suit his/her own ideological mantra.

    It is like saying: "The thermometer was read in Timbuktu yesterday and it was colder than the day before - NEWS FLASH - The World Is Cooling!!!!"
    Who in the real world has the time to read scientific papers other than wannabe academics & come to their own conclusions?
    According to the author Dr. Carl Wunsch, one of the world's most respected oceanographers,"A total change in [world ocean] heat content, top-to-bottom, is found (discussed below) of approximately 4 × 10^22 Joules in 19 years, for a net heating of 0.2±0.1 W/m2, smaller than some published values (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005, 0.86±0.12 W/m2 ; Lyman et al., 2010, 0.63±0.28 W/m2; or von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011, 0.55±0.1 W/m2; but note the differing averaging periods), but indistinguishable from the summary Fig. 14 of Abraham et al. (2013). Perhaps coincidentally, it is similar to the 135-year 700 m depth ocean rate of 0.2±0.1 W/m2 of Roemmich et al. (2012)."
    Normal people just read the summary, now if this quote above is not correct tell us so, but it appears to be more ammunition against the AGW alarmists exaggerating everything they can get their hands onto, to back the belief they are following. Examples like this just erode their credibility, which really is fine by most people.
    regards inte

  12. #11462
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Who in the real world has the time to read scientific papers
    Anyone with an ounce of real interest in the subject.

    Probably time better spent reading scientific papers than trawling the echo chamber for blog posts to support one's own opinion.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  13. #11463
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Who in the real world has the time to read scientific papers other than wannabe academics & come to their own conclusions?
    If you haven't got time to inform yourself of the conclusions of the paper, summarised BTW for everyone to see in the introduction and conclusion, before repeating outrageous claims, perhaps you should put a sock in it...

    How do you get from:
    "A total change in [world ocean] heat content, top-to-bottom, is found (discussed below) of approximately 4 × 10^22 Joules in 19 years, for a net heating of 0.2±0.1 W/m2, smaller than some published values (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005, 0.86±0.12 W/m2 ; Lyman et al., 2010, 0.63±0.28 W/m2; or von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011, 0.55±0.1 W/m2; but note the differing averaging periods), but indistinguishable from the summary Fig. 14 of Abraham et al. (2013). Perhaps coincidentally, it is similar to the 135-year 700 m depth ocean rate of 0.2±0.1 W/m2 of Roemmich et al. (2012)."

    to the blogosphere headline:

    Why the IPCC exaggerates greenhouse warming of the oceans by at least 2.5 times?


    The author Dr. Carl Wunsch, who as you point out is one of the world's most respected oceanographers and who's research isn't even focused on the heat content of the oceans above 2000 metres, in any case says that at the present time warming in the upper oceans is roughly consistent with those regions of the ocean expected to display the earliest responses to surface disturbances. That's kind of the opposite of the ideoblog's headline claims!


    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Normal people just read the summary, now if this quote above is not correct tell us so, but it appears to be more ammunition against the AGW alarmists exaggerating everything they can get their hands onto, to back the belief they are following. Examples like this just erode their credibility, which really is fine by most people.
    The quote is correct - the blogocrap conclusion is not. Normal people make normal conclusions, not conclude the opposite of what was said. Ideobloggers make stuff up for lazy people to confirm their misbeliefs. We can do without that misinformation being repeated here, thank you.

  14. #11464
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Anyone with an ounce of real interest in the subject.

    Probably time better spent reading scientific papers than trawling the echo chamber for blog posts to support one's own opinion.
    You must be an extremely talented person to have done the academic study to phd or greater level in all the fields of the research study to know what was being said other than the literary summary or conclusions like the rest of us mere mortals! What would the chances of that being possible?
    regards inter

  15. #11465
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    If you haven't got time to inform yourself of the conclusions of the paper, summarised BTW for everyone to see in the introduction and conclusion, before repeating outrageous claims, perhaps you should put a sock in it...

    How do you get from:
    "A total change in [world ocean] heat content, top-to-bottom, is found (discussed below) of approximately 4 × 10^22 Joules in 19 years, for a net heating of 0.2±0.1 W/m2, smaller than some published values (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005, 0.86±0.12 W/m2 ; Lyman et al., 2010, 0.63±0.28 W/m2; or von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011, 0.55±0.1 W/m2; but note the differing averaging periods), but indistinguishable from the summary Fig. 14 of Abraham et al. (2013). Perhaps coincidentally, it is similar to the 135-year 700 m depth ocean rate of 0.2±0.1 W/m2 of Roemmich et al. (2012)."

    to the blogosphere headline:

    Why the IPCC exaggerates greenhouse warming of the oceans by at least 2.5 times?


    The author Dr. Carl Wunsch, who as you point out is one of the world's most respected oceanographers and who's research isn't even focused on the heat content of the oceans above 2000 metres, in any case says that at the present time warming in the upper oceans is roughly consistent with those regions of the ocean expected to display the earliest responses to surface disturbances. That's kind of the opposite of the ideoblog's headline claims!




    The quote is correct - the blogocrap conclusion is not. Normal people make normal conclusions, not conclude the opposite of what was said. Ideobloggers make stuff up for lazy people to confirm their misbeliefs. We can do without that misinformation being repeated here, thank you.
    What your reading isn't what I'm reading & understanding, your missing a vital link in the chain, but that is obvious to any observer.
    regards inter

  16. #11466
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Intertd6, re your two previous posts: what's with the defamatory trolling and personal attacks? If you have nothing to contribute to the topic, why post anything at all?

  17. #11467
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Intertd6, re your two previous posts: what's with the defamatory trolling and personal attacks? If you have nothing to contribute to the topic, why post anything at all?
    +1

    Nothing to say but personal attacks.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  18. #11468
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Intertd6, re your two previous posts: what's with the defamatory trolling and personal attacks? If you have nothing to contribute to the topic, why post anything at all?
    It's been a bit of a trend of late with Inter but it is getting out of hand. +1

  19. #11469
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    It's been a bit of a trend of late with Inter but it is getting out of hand. +1
    do you think that when clear evidence is posted & you fellows come to your own conclusions bagging any discussion into the matter & think that doesn't insult anybodies intelligence, then your need & are getting a reality check, that's the thing about these online discussions, your going to get other differing opinions other than the ones your used to, where your influence or charisma could have mesmerised them into agreeing with what ever you may think is appropriate.
    if you still feel that strongly about the missing tax, donate your own money freely, nobody in the wider community will complain at all or care less.
    regards inter

  20. #11470
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    do you think that when clear evidence is posted & you fellows come to your own conclusions bagging any discussion into the matter & think that doesn't insult anybodies intelligence, then your need & are getting a reality check, that's the thing about these online discussions, your going to get other differing opinions other than the ones your used to, where your influence or charisma could have mesmerised them into agreeing with what ever you may think is appropriate.
    if you still feel that strongly about the missing tax, donate your own money freely, nobody in the wider community will complain at all or care less.
    regards inter
    The problem is the "clear evidence" it often isn't clear and it's seldom evidence, the rest of this is disjointed, lacks clarity and draws a conclusion unrelated to your premise of discussion.

  21. #11471
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    do you think that when clear evidence is posted & you fellows come to your own conclusions bagging any discussion into the matter & think that doesn't insult anybodies intelligence
    There has been ample clear evidence of climate change posted. From your quarter, we do not hear much discussion of the evidence, we hear repeated personal attacks on the messenger and avoidance of engaging the topic. Bagging the discussion would be a step forward from the current methods employed.

    The conclusions we share is with mainstream science. If unsupported opinion sourced from idealogical blog sites is posted, forgive us for not heeding it as valuable as peer reviewed science developed over many years.

    Regarding insults to intelligence, failing to engage in valid discussion and tending to personal derogatory attacks informs the other parties of one's own ability to communicate and displays a lower level of intelligence than I and probably others here think you have. Short version: Self inflicted wound.

    As teachers often say 'could do better'.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  22. #11472
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    The problem is the "clear evidence" it often isn't clear and it's seldom evidence, the rest of this is disjointed, lacks clarity and draws a conclusion unrelated to your premise of discussion.
    i still think you should donate freely, regardless.
    regards inter

  23. #11473
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    There has been ample clear evidence of climate change posted. From your quarter, we do not hear much discussion of the evidence, we hear repeated personal attacks on the messenger and avoidance of engaging the topic. Bagging the discussion would be a step forward from the current methods employed.

    The conclusions we share is with mainstream science. If unsupported opinion sourced from idealogical blog sites is posted, forgive us for not heeding it as valuable as peer reviewed science developed over many years.

    Regarding insults to intelligence, failing to engage in valid discussion and tending to personal derogatory attacks informs the other parties of one's own ability to communicate and displays a lower level of intelligence than I and probably others here think you have. Short version: Self inflicted wound.

    As teachers often say 'could do better'.
    As above! Maybe borrow some as well.
    regards inter

  24. #11474
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    i still think you should donate freely, regardless.
    regards inter
    ...maybe I will...when you work for free.

    https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/donate/
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  25. #11475
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    i still think you should donate freely, regardless.
    regards inter
    Really? I see this is your new catch cry, donate what to where? These comments do you no credit, it is not discussion, it is not supported by any other comments, it is not humour, and is really rather puerile.

  26. #11476
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    How many times have the resident warmist or those in the diaspora repeated at nausea the mantra that 97% of climate scientist agree about the dangers of global warming? Too many for my taste, however much more interesting is the realization of how that figure was achieved.
    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...9#.U9n8Z-OSzCx

    And if that is not enough check this one out for good measure:
    The 97% consensus myth busted by a real survey:

    Posted on November 20, 2013 by Anthony Watts
    We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.
    In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.
    Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al².
    So, while we’ll be fighting this lie for years, one very important bit of truth has emerged that will help put it into its proper place of propaganda, rather than science. A recent real survey conducted of American Meteorological Society members has blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water.
    The survey is titled:
    Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members¹
    Read the article here:
    The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey | Watts Up With That?

    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  27. #11477
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    More crap from the blogosphere courtesy of Marc. In a torrent of outpouring seven (yes folks, that's lucky number 7) out of several tens of thousands (10,000s) of paper authors have responded that they feel their papers were poorly classified. Thanks a lot for the heads-up - NOT!

    Oh, and it misses the whole point anyway. Science is not a popularity contest, and the significant consensus is in the data and its analysis - not peoples' opinions. But hey, why get hung up on minor details!

  28. #11478
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    The hilarious part is Marc thinking he has taste.

  29. #11479
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    ... or wit, or insight...

  30. #11480
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    ...maybe I will...when you work for free.

    https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/donate/
    It's nice of you to try to include me in your delusion, but I will and always will decline the offer!
    great link, now the others don't have an excuse not to know where to donate to. ( I know the grammar is enough to make an incontinent pad uncomfortable)
    regards inter

  31. #11481
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    +1

    Nothing to say but personal attacks.
    If you really do have the qualifications & can decipher all the technical jargon of the majority of the climate research papers, then you actually received a complement! Seeing that's a million to one possibility, it's nice of you to try & convince us to waste our time like you claim to do! Nobody is attacking your credibility more than yourself
    regards inter

  32. #11482
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Normally, consistency might be considered a virtue. But consistently ignoring the rules of civil discussion (and the rules of this forum), consistently failing to address the topic of the thread, and consistently attacking the character of others participating in the conversation, seems to be a speciality of a particular kind of person, one who is able to disregard the avalanche of evidence on account of they found a grain of sand that wasn't affected.

  33. #11483
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Really? I see this is your new catch cry, donate what to where? These comments do you no credit, it is not discussion, it is not supported by any other comments, it is not humour, and is really rather puerile.
    No I'm serious, I'm worried sick about your dilemma of having extra money in your pocket & not know where to direct it. The rest of us will spend it on beer, women, cars & if there's any left over we might waste some of it!
    regards inter

  34. #11484
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    No I'm serious, I'm worried sick about your dilemma of having extra money in your pocket & not know where to direct it. The rest of us will spend it on beer, women, cars & if there's any left over we might waste some of it!
    regards inter
    This is idiotic and tiresome, reducing a discussion to this level just demonstrates a lack of focus. Do you just knock out stupid replies to keep this blundering along because the refusal to accept anything beyond your own view seems arranged to frustrate it certainly doesn't inform.

  35. #11485
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    This is idiotic and tiresome, reducing a discussion to this level just demonstrates a lack of focus. Do you just knock out stupid replies to keep this blundering along because the refusal to accept anything beyond your own view seems arranged to frustrate it certainly doesn't inform.
    Makes for a pleasant change & anything is better than the usual bleating of the same worn out limp excuses for dodging simple questions from the opposing side.
    Regards inter

  36. #11486
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Makes for a pleasant change & anything is better than the usual bleating of the same worn out limp excuses for dodging simple questions from the opposing side.
    Regards inter
    I think it would be fair to say you have elevated dodging any questions to an art form, while the other side has actually put forward replies and supportive information.

  37. #11487
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Interesting isn't it? The major claims of the warmist camp that believe support or otherwise promote the global warming fraud, is:
    a)Human made CO2 is responsible for DANGEROUS warming.
    b) 97% of climate scientist agree to this.

    Both premise are busted and have been busted for decades yet no one listens. Why? Simple, the advantages of keeping this up far outweigh the opposite, that is, to tell the truth that it was all a fabrication with a hidden agenda or at least, pretend that it was a mistake.
    So much easier to attack the author, and I don't mean myself, mind you. I find the post in this thread rather hilarious and harmless since the authors themselves are rather lovable and easygoing judging from their post in the rest of the forum.

    Yet worldwide, the global warming fallacy involves too many emotions, this fabrication is a perfect fit for the hate the successful mob who find through the global warming myth the perfect channel to blame anything that produces money or is in any way a success on its own right, and forces money earned genuinely towards industries who exist only propped by subsidies, or rather gifts based on ideology. Furthermore it empowers obscure political forces who received only marginal votes, by capturing also the opportunist in the mainstream politics who see the opportunity to capture the deluded voter.

    A win win situation, why change it right?
    Wrong!

    A rather pathetic situation but that is the reality of today's political landscape.
    Tomorrow will bring it's own challenges. I always wonder what will they be ... Global cooling perhaps? Who will be blame? The Russians who left the fridge open?
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  38. #11488
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    a) Human made CO2 is responsible for warming.
    b) 97% of climate scientist agree to this.

    DANGEROUS is a value judgement. You might read that in the media, not so much in scientific papers.

    Both premise are busted and have been busted for decades yet no one listens. Why?
    Actually, no. Both premises are current and not busted. These represent the state of our scientific understanding. Scientific understanding is not something that can be busted by opinion, what is requried is scientific research that shows a more plausible alternative theory. Currently, there is none that holds sway and very, very few have been published at all.

    You want it busted, then someone has to do the hard yards to bust it, and if they did they would be famous, probably pick up a Nobel prize if their new theory was shown to be more likely than the current one. Unfortunately, the likelihood of a new theory chucking out the current one is becoming vanishingly small as time goes on, it's been a long time now. Always a chance, however small.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  39. #11489
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    I think it would be fair to say you have elevated dodging any questions to an art form, while the other side has actually put forward replies and supportive information.
    I only I was that imaginative & stupid to believe that ludicrous statement, but try as I might it is beyond the normal terms of reasonable sanity, so I'd rather stay on the side of reality, as there are no lies to remember!
    regards inter

  40. #11490
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    I only I was that imaginative & stupid ...
    Is there a point to your post in relation to the the forum topic?

  41. #11491
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    July 2011
    You Call This Consensus?
    By Joseph L. Bast1
    Contrary to what you read repeatedly in daily newspapers or hear on television, most scientists
    do not believe there is a “scientific consensus” that man-made climate change (often labeled
    anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) is or will be a catastrophe. Unfortunately, the
    old/mainstream/dead media will be the last folks to acknowledge this, so people who dispute the
    “consensus” will continue to be slandered and abused for years to come.
    It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific
    consensus that AGW is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is
    changing (of course it is, it is always changing) and that most scientists believe there may be a
    human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an
    impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural
    variation).
    The three different statements are not contradictory or mutually exclusive. Yet it is difficult to
    find a reporter for a major daily newspaper who understands this elementary distinction. Since
    reporters aren’t all stupid, we can only guess as to their motives for blurring this important
    distinction.
    What evidence is there to support my claim? I believe it follows from a reasonable interpretation
    of the following evidence.
    (1) The latest international survey of climate scientists by German scientists Dennis Bray and
    Hans von Storch2
    found (quoting my own interpretation of their results) that “for two-thirds of
    the questions asked, scientific opinion is DEEPLY DIVIDED, and in half of those cases, most
    scientists DISAGREE with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case.”3 ​Read further here:
    http://heartland.org/sites/default/f..._consensus.pdf
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  42. #11492
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    The Myth of a Global Warming Consensus

    Written by Joseph Bast, Taylor Smith, Heartland Institute on 15 May 2014.
    Many legislators are told they must enact climate change legislation because an alleged “scientific consensus” holds that man-made climate change requires urgent action. They are repeatedly told “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that human activities are causing dangerous climate change, and that the only way to prevent this disaster from occurring is to adopt government policies that raise the price of fossil fuels and subsidize or mandate the use of alternatives such as wind and solar energy. But what evidence is there for such unanimity? What do scientists really say?

    The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims to represent more than 2,500 scientists who agree that man-made global warming is a serious problem. But this is misleading. While a total of 2,500 (or some similar number) scientists participate in some way in the writing or review of its reports, the IPCC’s working group responsible for assessing the causes of climate change and its future trajectory consists of only about 600 scientists, and many of those are activists working for environmental interest groups. For the Fourth Assessment Report, only 62 were responsible for reviewing the chapter that attributed climate change to man-made greenhouse gas emissions, with 55 of those being known advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Of the seven impartial reviewers, two disagreed with the statement, leaving only five credible scientific reviewers who unequivocally endorse the IPCC’s conclusion, a far cry from 2,500.

    In 2004, science historian Naomi Oreskes wrote an essay for the journal Science that examined abstracts from 928 papers reported by the Institute for Scientific Information database published in scientific journals from 1993 and 2003, using the key words “global climate change.” She concluded 75 percent of the abstracts either implicitly or explicitly supported the alarmist view while none directly dissented. Oreskes’ essay, which was not peer-reviewed, became the basis of a book (Merchants of Doubt)and an academic career built on claiming that global warming “skeptics” were a tiny minority within the scientific community. Her claim appeared in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
    Oreskes’ claim was immediately debunked by scores of scientists pointing to their own papers published in peer-reviewed journals that directly contradict the claim of man-made global warming. More than 1,300 such articles are now identified in an online bibliography at populartechnology.net. Anthropologist Benny Peiser attempted to replicate Oreskes’ findings and found only one-third of the papers endorsed the alarmist view and only 1 percent did so explicitly. In 2008, medical researcher Klaus-Martin Schulte used the same database and search terms as Oreskes to examine papers published from 2004 to February 2007 and found fewer than half endorsed the “consensus” and only 7 percent did so explicitly. Schulte counted 31 papers (6 percent of the sample) that explicitly or implicitly rejected the “consensus.”

    In 2009, a paper by Doran and Zimmerman published in EOS claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that mean global temperatures have risen since before the 1800s and that humans are a significant contributing factor. This study, too, has been debunked. The survey asked the wrong questions. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming also support those statements. The survey was silent on whether or not the human impact was large enough to constitute a problem or would cause a problem in the future. Moreover, the “97 percent” figure represents the views of only 79 of the 3,146 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than 50 percent of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. This is not evidence of consensus.

    And more and more HERE
    : The Myth of a Global Warming Consensus | Climate Change Dispatch
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  43. #11493
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default



    Why post a load of debunked nonsense, regurgitated crap from ideology blogs?


    and if you must post, then just post the link, not the whole steaming pile of doggy-do.


    And anyone who indiscriminately believes anonymous bloggers on Heartland or Climate Change Despatch (or any other blog on any other topic), you are nearby notified

  44. #11494
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Do we have any consensus that having a consensus is actually of any consequence? The current consensus about T. Abbot's performance as PM runs counter to his likely preference...but he's still PM. A consensus of no significance then. So it is with this 'other' consensus...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  45. #11495
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Is there a point to your post in relation to the the forum topic?
    if you think your rhetoric will bore us to death, your right! It's working!
    regards inter

  46. #11496
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post


    Why post a load of debunked nonsense, regurgitated crap from ideology blogs?


    and if you must post, then just post the link, not the whole steaming pile of doggy-do.


    And anyone who indiscriminately believes anonymous bloggers on Heartland or Climate Change Despatch (or any other blog on any other topic), you are nearby notified
    Names have been quoted in regards to the post, we need some more info on your debunking proof, otherwise it would appear you have put your mouth in gear without engaging your brain again!
    regards inter

  47. #11497
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Marc,

    You can draw an alternative consensus as your blogger copy/paste has, and shoot it down but that is just a straw man argument. The consensus is not about the word 'dangerous' or 'alarming', it's about the unequivocal results of scientific investigation. The consensus is that we have been and are in fact still pumping enough CO2 into the atmosphere to impact the climate.

    For policy makers, it isn't rocket science. It's quite simple, and it's just like a noisy wheel bearing: Fix it now and the cost will be far less than fixing it when it fails, if it is even possible to fix it after it has caused mayhem.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  48. #11498
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Names have been quoted in regards to the post, we need some more info on your debunking proof, otherwise it would appear you have put your mouth in gear without engaging your brain again!
    regards inter
    Re-read the post, a bit more carefully this time, and then reflect on who put their "mouth in gear without engaging your brain again" - the statement about anonymous bloggers is a deliberately general one, not specifically referring to Marc's cut and past nonsense.

    But since you mentioned names: Joseph L Bast - an economics student who didn't finish his degree, who claims that the idea smoking is harmful is a lie, and founded a bogus ideological front organisation with the intention of deception, the non-scientific "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" covertly funded by Exxon-Mobil, and you still want believe this guy?.

    And please don't rabbit on about shooting the messenger - what do you think Joseph L Bast et al are doing?

  49. #11499
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Ha ha, I did not expect any replies, only outrage at the authors. Well I have the same outrage at all the rubbish published by the ipcc and the rest of the propaganda machine including the mercenary scientist, but that does not matter. What matters is the facts. Of course anyone posting one position would expect a rational explanation saying why this position is wrong. For example if the 97% figure is not a fiction how was it achieved?

    There is wide held disagreement among scientist, and the disagreement is directly proportional to the differential pay among the dissenters. There is not even agreement that the amount of CO2 produced by human activity has any relevant influence on temperatures. Therefore it is very important to debunk the 97% consensus myth. There is no consensus because the sane scientist did not get paid enough to pretend and look the other way.

    Of course there is a sector of the population that believes in the CO2 mythology, and also believes that a totalitarian regime, possibly of marxist extraction is the best way to preserve gaia from our unholy attacks. Each one to its own, some search for bigfoot, the Hawkesbury monster and the aliens in area 52. And that is Ok too. Yet when it comes to forcibly ask for contributions and to forcibly take away our freedom in order to save what does not need to be saved from an imaginary foe, well I draw the line.
    No amount of scaremongering and false pretenses will change the facts. Computer models massaging do not change reality unless you live in a virtual alternative reality.

    THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
    The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain.

    There are not many individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those who support global warming within the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right thing and take a stand against this evil, proving just how unscientifically founded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it. Below, you will find links to information and articles showing the proof that global warming is nothing more than just a bunch of hot air (pun intended).
    The date that you see by each headline is the date when it was posted here. If you know of a news story, research, or information that should be posted here, please let us know and provide us with a link. The articles posted for previous years have been archived and links are provided to them; by year; at the bottom of this page.

    31 July 2014 - Global Warming Proponents Attribute Rapid Sea Ice Growth To Computer Error [What a load of nonsense! Whenever proof of their global warming lies come to light they always come up with some really lame excuse to try to discard and discredit it!]

    02 July 2014 - Link Between Warming, CO2 Is Absent [Despite what the Cult of Global warming would have you believe, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Plants need CO2 to live and in return they give us oxygen. It is called the cycle of life, not pollution!]
    01 July 2014 - NASA Launches Satellite To Study Global Warming After Revelation Of Faked Data [Does this make sense to you? They get caught lying and falsifying information and now spend even more money to do more lying and faking!]
    01 July 2014 - NOAA Quietly Revises Website After Getting Caught In Global Warming Lie, Admitting 1936 Was Hotter Than 2012
    26 June 2014 - Obama Mocks Climate Skeptics In Congress: ‘I’m Going To Just Pretend...I Can’t Read' [He is just an idiot who has his own little world to live in. If anyone disagrees or questions him they get attacked, called names, and belittled!] [Has an embedded video on the web page]
    24 June 2014 - Global Warming 'Fabricated' By NASA And NOAA
    24 June 2014 - Just Another Lie Revealed In The Lie Of Manmade Climate Change
    24 June 2014 - Global Warming Data FAKED By Government To Fit Climate Change Fictions
    16 June 2014 - Barack Obama: Climate "Deniers" Are "Threat To Everybody's Future" [Actually HE is the one who is a threat to everybody’s future] [Has an embedded video on the web page]
    16 June 2014 - Obama: Climate Change Deniers Ignore Science [Actually it is he and the Cult of Global Warming that are denying science and the facts!]
    09 June 2014 - Local Taxpayers Threatened With Lawsuits If they Don't Sink Money Into "Preparing for Climate Change" [More government nonsense to force people to become part of this idiotic movement and cult! And even more of them taking away your right to think and decide things for yourself]
    09 June 2014 - Obama 'Absolutely' Wants To Go Off On Climate Change Deniers In Congress [Has an embedded video on the web page]
    09 June 2014 - As Global Warming Falls Apart, The Worshipers Of Mother Earth Get More Shrill [That’s the typical way a cult acts when its teachings, beliefs, and practices are exposed as being nothing but falsehoods and lies!!!]
    09 June 2014 - A History Of The Disastrous Global Warming Hoax
    02 June 2014 - Climate Change Pentagon Expert: My Goal Was To Induce Fear, Not Be Accurate
    02 June 2014 - States Move To Blunt Obama Carbon Plan
    02 June 2014 - If Storms Are Evidence Of Climate Change Then What Are No Storms Evidence For?
    29 May 2014 - Behind The Lie That 97% Of Scientists Back Global Warming Hoax
    23 May 2014 - Why Global Warming Believers Don’t Talk About These Storms
    22 May 2014 - John Kerry Says “So What If We’re Wrong About Climate Change?” [What’s there to say? Almost every word out of his mouth just shows how much of an idiot he really is!]
    22 May 2014 - Climate Fear Mongers: Global Warming Threatening The Statue Of Liberty [These nuts have obviously skipped or ignored the part in the Bible where God promises never to flood the earth again! – See Genesis 9:11]
    21 May 2014 - Kerry Mocks Climate Skeptics: ‘Flat Earth Society’ [That is because he is an IDIOT who does not want to face the real facts and only goes along with what he thinks will benefit him in one capacity or another!] [Has an embedded video on the web page]
    20 May 2014 - Preachers Of Deception: Global Warming Alarmists Are Feeding Us Lies
    19 May 2014 - Letter: Don’t Demonize Those Who Deny Climate Change
    19 May 2014 - Yet Another “Peer-Reviewed” Cover-Up For Global Warming
    14 May 2014 - What Freedoms Will Christians Be Duped Into Surrendering In The Name Of The Environment?
    14 May 2014 - You Say 'Climate Change,' I Say 'Weather'
    14 May 2014 - Global “Warming:” Antarctic Sea Ice Continues To Break Records
    14 May 2014 - They're Not Melting: 87% Of Himalayan Glaciers Are ‘Stable’
    09 May 2014 - Not Climate Change Anymore: Climate Disruption [As with any cult or false teachings, they constantly change what exactly it is they believe in, and constantly change the names so it fits with what they are doing and the things around them!]
    07 May 2014 - WH Climate Report: Sea Level Could Rise 8 Inches, 11 Inches, 4 Feet, Or 6.6 Feet [More lies from the Cult of Global Warming. This is the same nonsense they keep trying to push year after year!]
    07 May 2014 - The Great Climate Change Hoax Rolls On
    06 May 2014 - Satellite Data Proves Earth Has Not Been Warming The Past 18 Years - It's Stable

    Plenty more here:THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  50. #11500
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    This is my pick of the bunch and yes there are a few that are a bit too American for my taste, but some may like them.
    This is real good and to the point.

    Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions - NaturalNews.com
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

Page 230 of 377 FirstFirst ... 130 180 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 280 330 ... 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
  •