Emission Trading and climate change

Page 238 of 377 FirstFirst ... 138 188 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 288 338 ... LastLast
Results 11,851 to 11,900 of 18819
  1. #11851
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    "Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[30][31] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, "
    Snap! Already mentioned in this thread in response to your side singing Dr Spencer's praises. Now your side wants to sink his blog by playing his personal beliefs - Rod would not be impressed! lol

    You're digging yourself a hole. Dr Spencer and his comment acolytes are not AGW science supporters. Even bearing in mind his signing of that declaration, he is still one of the more rational skeptics on your side. You'd definitely fit in his comment community.

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


  2. #11852
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    ...my comment had nothing much at all to do with the linked 'article' in Marc's post. It was more about Marc's "what we can read about the global warming soap opera" comment. Thank you for your contribution.
    just here for an argument then?

  3. #11853
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Snap! Already mentioned in this thread in response to your side singing Dr Spencer's praises. Now your side wants to sink his blog by playing his personal beliefs - Rod would not be impressed! lol

    You're digging yourself a hole. Dr Spencer and his comment acolytes are not AGW science supporters. Even bearing in mind his signing of that declaration, he is still one of the more rational skeptics on your side. You'd definitely fit in his comment community.
    yeah what ever! You won't find me quoting from anybody remotely resembling somebody with those beliefs, unlike you fellows who will pick any dribble you can to support your cult beliefs, which was proven by johnwannabe, just supply some proof for your belief to bring it into the world of reality!
    regards inter

  4. #11854
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    I don't quote beliefs, I accept the mainstream science. If it changes, then I will accept that too.

    Chances of a radical about turn in science now on Climate Change? 0.000000000001%

    You believe the science is wrong, that is a position not supported by science, it is a belief. Look in the mirror!

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


  5. #11855
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Re: Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    just here for an argument then?
    I've got your back if you falter...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  6. #11856
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I don't quote beliefs, I accept the mainstream science. If it changes, then I will accept that too.

    Chances of a radical about turn in science now on Climate Change? 0.000000000001%

    You believe the science is wrong, that is a position not supported by science, it is a belief. Look in the mirror!
    Mainstream science opinion is basing their CO2 theories on the last 100 years of climate records, which when compared to the previous historic climate data shows that it is anecdotal evidence linking CO2 to the last centuries warming, there is no proof for your belief that that they are intimately linked, hence the global institution industry churning out evermore ludicrous theories still attempting to prove it, opinion is not science & Only fools accept opinions that parade as science.
    regards inter

  7. #11857
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    I've got your back if you falter...
    Well you don't seem to be here for a legitimate reason! And come to think of it you haven't produced anything other than hot air, no data, no links, nothing of substance! A perfect policy maker!
    regards inter

  8. #11858
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Mainstream science opinion is basing their CO2 theories on the last 100 years of climate records, which when compared to the previous historic climate data shows that it is anecdotal evidence linking CO2 to the last centuries warming, there is no proof for your belief that that they are intimately linked, hence the global institution industry churning out evermore ludicrous theories still attempting to prove it, opinion is not science & Only fools accept opinions that parade as science.
    regards inter
    What a load of hogwash!

    Unbelievably, that apparently is your belief, but it is nothing like what the science reveals or how it is carried out. Science is not based on opinion, nor is the understanding of the science of CO2 based on 100 years of climate records. Where did you get that idea?

    I think it's about time you started doing some honest reading on the subject because you are clearly inventing a story about science that does not agree with the facts about how science is executed or what the results of scientific enquiry into the climate are.

    "Only fools accept opinions that parade as science" lol. Please point out the published climate science papers that are opinions parading as science.

    Again, look in the mirror, you might see a fool!

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


  9. #11859
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Did it occur to you to enquire of the BoM as to their view and reasoning on the matter?
    Silent, I am well aware of the logic (or illogic) of massaging data for a purpose, it is the "purpose" that is in question ... The same applies to scaling the x and the y for a purpose. Look at the share price grafts done for the purpose of disinformation, showing wild price fluctuations. The reality is that such fluctuation turn out to be irrelevant because the scale of the y is way too big. Similarly to graph temperature anomalies in tenth of a centigrade for a period of 160 years is insane.


    However this time, I want to ask you a personal question if you don't mind. Did you mention some time back, that you are in a team of advisers to the government on matters of this nature or did I misunderstand a post of yours?
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  10. #11860
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Again, look in the mirror, you might see a fool!
    Woodbe, we are all aware of your convictions, and we all suffer your strategies to parade them here. When I deplore them, it is abundantly clear that resorting to call Inter a fool, is way below the waist. You can say that his ideas are foolish, that skeptics are fools but clearly not that he is one in your view. I suggest that you edit your post.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  11. #11861
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    That is well and truly beyond the pale. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  12. #11862
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Woodbe, we are all aware of your convictions, and we all suffer your strategies to parade them here. When I deplore them, it is abundantly clear that resorting to call Inter a fool, is way below the waist. You can say that his ideas are foolish, that skeptics are fools but clearly not that he is one in your view. I suggest that you edit your post.
    I suggest you read the post I responded to and understand your bias. Neither of us directly called the other a fool.

    However, should inter edit his post to remove the inference that anyone who respects climate science is a fool, I would be happy to remove my inference that anyone who believes climate science is only an opinion etc is a fool.

    Happy to oblige

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


  13. #11863
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I suggest you read the post I responded to and understand your bias. Neither of us directly called the other a fool.

    However, should inter edit his post to remove the inference that anyone who respects climate science is a fool, I would be happy to remove my inference that anyone who believes climate science is only an opinion etc is a fool.

    Happy to oblige
    the chances of me seeing a fool in the mirror are about 20 million to one, as we will never ever be in the same room at the same time!
    Regards inter

  14. #11864
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    What a load of hogwash!

    Unbelievably, that apparently is your belief, but it is nothing like what the science reveals or how it is carried out. Science is not based on opinion, nor is the understanding of the science of CO2 based on 100 years of climate records. Where did you get that idea?

    I think it's about time you started doing some honest reading on the subject because you are clearly inventing a story about science that does not agree with the facts about how science is executed or what the results of scientific enquiry into the climate are.

    "Only fools accept opinions that parade as science" lol. Please point out the published climate science papers that are opinions parading as science.

    Again, look in the mirror, you might see a fool!
    so the science is settled then? How many fools have seen their demise saying or thinking that worn out gem! I believe the presented arguments with the best data to back up the theory, CO2 fails miserably to all but the most fanatical clingons.
    regards inter

  15. #11865
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    so the science is settled then? How many fools have seen their demise saying or thinking that worn out gem! I believe the presented arguments with the best data to back up the theory, CO2 fails miserably to all but the most fanatical clingons.
    regards inter
    I think you need to reread what I wrote, especially this:

    I don't quote beliefs, I accept the mainstream science. If it changes, then I will accept that too.
    What's bleeding obvious is you don't accept the science unless it suits your opinion. So you accept the science behind the device you post with here but another branch of science is based on opinion and fanatics. no wonder you have a dual personality inter/reggie. :P

    And where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got nothing!

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


  16. #11866
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    I believe the presented arguments with the best data to back up the theory, CO2 fails miserably to all but the most fanatical clingons.
    Geochemical and other analysis from ice cores and ocean sediment core, infer large climate changes have occurred over Earth’s history as you often remind us.

    Climate projections are based on universal scientific principles, such as the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer, and optical properties of gases. Climate models are based on the best understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological processes being modelled.

    Evidence that there have been high concentrations of CO2 in the distant past, or that temperature changes have preceded changes in carbon dioxide concentrations, only shows that CO2 alone does not set global temperature.

    Those events do not invalidate the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer, and do not prove that the increase of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations will not case warming.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  17. #11867
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I think you need to reread what I wrote, especially this:



    What's bleeding obvious is you don't accept the science unless it suits your opinion. So you accept the science behind the device you post with here but another branch of science is based on opinion and fanatics. no wonder you have a dual personality inter/reggie. :P

    And where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got nothing!
    i accept the scientific data that's based on history, your science is based on no such thing, if your models are applied to past climates they fail! Full stop! As not shown by your side, science can't explain why when CO2 fell temperatures rose & when CO2 rose temperatures fell, it's just plain flat ignorance of this that makes your theory stink, only galahs seeking some sort of evangelical forfillment in one way or another feel the need to ram home something that hasn't been proven either way, I'll wait for real scientific conformation not opinion or stacked concensus. I'm quite happy for the galahs to donate all their spare cash & more to their cause, but don't expect the rest of us to follow blindly when some half baked gov't imposes a stupid ideology on the population.
    regards inter

  18. #11868
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post

    Those events do not invalidate the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer, and do not prove that the increase of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations will not case warming.
    you must present your repeatable real world experiment that shows how a atmosphere containing CO2 at 60 parts per million more than normal can heat it by around 1 degree
    regards inter

  19. #11869
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    you must present your repeatable real world experiment that shows how a atmosphere containing CO2 at 60 parts per million more than normal can heat it by around 1 degree
    regards inter
    You and I have participated in that experiment already and and you must have known the outcome because here is the result which, as you suggested, is around 1 degree.:

    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  20. #11870
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    i accept the scientific data that's based on history, your science is based on no such thing, if your models are applied to past climates they fail! Full stop!
    Not true. CP - Abstract - Historical and idealized climate model experiments: an intercomparison of Earth system models of intermediate complexity
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  21. #11871
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    duplicate post removed
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  22. #11872
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    i accept the scientific data that's based on history, your science is based on no such thing
    Again, you misunderstand or misinform on science.

    Scientific data is not science, it is data!

    Science is based on analysing the components and coming up with a theory that is testable with data.

    No surprises here, you twist science around your opinion.

    Where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got nothing!

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


  23. #11873
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    So I'm wondering why you would use this link to prove that the temperature predictions are not being realised since 1998, any normal person would reach the conclusion that nothing is making sense!
    regards inter

  24. #11874
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    You and I have participated in that experiment already and and you must have known the outcome because here is the result which, as you suggested, is around 1 degree.:

    Your insulting your own intelligence again by the look of it, that's what's happening, now just for you the question again,

    "you must present your repeatable real world experiment that shows how a atmosphere containing CO2 at 60 parts per million more than normal can heat it by around 1 degree"

    seeing you appear a bit short in the understanding department this is the meaning of experiment,

    experiment
    ɪkˈspɛrɪm(ə)nt,ɛk-/
    noun
    1.
    a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.
    Surely you can parrot something remotely relevant?
    Regards inter

  25. #11875
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Again, you misunderstand or misinform on science.

    i understand science is based on ALL the available data, not just selected parts of the data!

    Scientific data is not science, it is data!

    see my previous reply above!

    Science is based on analysing the components and coming up with a theory that is testable with data.

    see my previous reply above!

    No surprises here, you twist science around your opinion.

    No i can just understand all the data


    Where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got nothing!

    until the theory is proven its nothing more than opinion, nothing is proven either way, so it's all opinions & not worth wasting gazillions of $ on, but please send all the cash you can to your nominated opinion cash taker & don't feel bad about us sane lot that decline the stupid offer!
    regards inter

  26. #11876
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe
    Again, you misunderstand or misinform on science.
    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    i understand science is based on ALL the available data, no just selected parts of the data!
    regards inter
    Science is not data, it is a process. All, or which part of the data is used is a selection made by the scientist doing the research. There is no requirement to use all of the data, and there is so much climate data that it would be extremely difficult to include all of the climate data in a single research paper. The results of science is not data, it is theories and methods that explain the data, or incremental improvements and modifications to those theories and methods that explain the data.

    You just don't get it, do you? For you, the output of science is some data that you can refute with some ignorant myth that rattles around your brain, born not from science but from opinion.

    Where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got nothing!

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


  27. #11877
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Re: Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    ...Similarly to graph temperature anomalies in tenth of a centigrade for a period of 160 years is insane.
    Year on year anomalies are tiny...

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    However this time, I want to ask you a personal question if you don't mind. Did you mention some time back, that you are in a team of advisers to the government on matters of this nature or did I misunderstand a post of yours?
    You misunderstood. I merely plan the response to policy...lots of freedom there. Fear naught. There's not much response, policy or not. Things are going as we expected long ago so we can plan for it regardless and you can all remain clueless...

    Ahhh...Utopia.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  28. #11878
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    seeing you appear a bit short in the understanding department this is the meaning of experiment,
    Ahhhh, you are talking about the weather, whilst everyone else is talking about climate, which is by definition the average over thirty years - doh! It isn't possible to look at 15 years of data in isolation and make any conclusions about climate, and certainly not the conclusion you come up with.

    And it isn't even possible to conclude there hasn't been any warming since 1998, because the record shows otherwise, as any one who mastered primary school maths and graphs can understand.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  29. #11879
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Science is not data, it is a process. All, or which part of the data is used is a selection made by the scientist doing the research. There is no requirement to use all of the data, and there is so much climate data that it would be extremely difficult to include all of the climate data in a single research paper. The results of science is not data, it is theories and methods that explain the data, or incremental improvements and modifications to those theories and methods that explain the data.

    You just don't get it, do you? For you, the output of science is some data that you can refute with some ignorant myth that rattles around your brain, born not from science but from opinion.

    Where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got nothing!
    So when your scientists develop a theory about future CO2 concentrations & temperature they disregard the past CO2 concentrations & temperatures & include everything else that's irrelevant! Your argument is too stupid to even contemplate!
    I say again
    "Until the theory is proven its nothing more than opinion, nothing is proven either way, so it's all opinions & not worth wasting gazillions of $ on, but please send all the cash you can to your nominated opinion cash taker & don't feel bad about us sane lot that decline the stupid offer!"
    regards inter

  30. #11880
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Originally Posted by intertd6
    seeing you appear a bit short in the understanding department this is the meaning of experiment,



    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Ahhhh, you are talking about the weather, whilst everyone else is talking about climate, which is by definition the average over thirty years - doh! It isn't possible to look at 15 years of data in isolation and make any conclusions about climate, and certainly not the conclusion you come up with.

    And it isn't even possible to conclude there hasn't been any warming since 1998, because the record shows otherwise, as any one who mastered primary school maths and graphs can understand.


    WTF! WOW! It only appeared that that way, then you have to go all out & prove it!!! And a whole lot more.
    regards inter

  31. #11881
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    So when your scientists develop a theory about future CO2 concentrations & temperature they disregard the past CO2 concentrations & temperatures & include everything else that's irrelevant! Your argument is too stupid to even contemplate!
    Since past CO2 concentrations & temperatures DO NOT invalidate the laws of conservation of energy or the laws of physics, it would appear YOUR argument is too stupid to contemplate.

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    "Until the theory is proven its nothing more than opinion, nothing is proven either way, so it's all opinions
    Science is not based on opinions as anyone with any interest would know. To quote a well known source, the statement above is just "too stupid to contemplate"...
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  32. #11882
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Since past CO2 concentrations & temperatures DO NOT invalidate the laws of conservation of energy or the laws of physics, it would appear YOUR argument is too stupid to contemplate.



    Science is not based on opinions as anyone with any interest would know. To quote a well known source, the statement above is just "too stupid to contemplate"...
    After your last post it's all too evident!
    regards inter

  33. #11883
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Originally Posted by intertd6
    seeing you appear a bit short in the understanding department this is the meaning of experiment,

    WTF! WOW! It only appeared that that way, then you have to go all out & prove it!!! And a whole lot more.
    Here is the UAH temperature record curated by global warming skeptics Dr Spenser and Dr Christy, but with a 37 month running average line added to show the climate trend for those who can't judge trends by eye. Even though I am short in the understanding department, as you so kindly pointed out, even I can see that the trend since 1998 is very definitely upwards.



    Global monthly average lower troposphere temperature since 1979 according to University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. This graph uses data obtained by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) TIROS-N satellite, interpreted by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, both at Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. The thick line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The cooling and warming periods directly influenced by the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption and the 1998 El Nio, respectively, are clearly visible. Reference period 1981-2010. Last month shown: July 2014. Last diagram update: 14 August 2014.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  34. #11884
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Since past CO2 concentrations & temperatures DO NOT invalidate the laws of conservation of energy or the laws of physics, it would appear YOUR argument is too stupid to contemplate.



    Science is not based on opinions as anyone with any interest would know. To quote a well known source, the statement above is just "too stupid to contemplate"...
    And a little more for those who want to redefine meanings....
    Scientific opinion
    "The scientific opinion" (or scientific consensus) can be compared to "the public opinion" and generally refers to the collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field. Science may often, however, be "partial, temporally contingent, conflicting, and uncertain"[2] so that there may be no accepted consensus for a particular situation. In other circumstances, a particular scientific opinion may be at odds with consensus.[2] Scientific literacy, also called public understanding of science, is an educational goal[3] concerned with providing the public with the necessary tools to benefit from scientific opinion.

    regards inter

  35. #11885
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Here is the UAH temperature record curated by global warming skeptics Dr Spenser and Dr Christy, but with a 37 month running average line added to show the climate trend for those who can't judge trends by eye. Even though I am short in the understanding department, as you so kindly pointed out, even I can see that the trend since 1998 is very definitely upwards.



    Global monthly average lower troposphere temperature since 1979 according to University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. This graph uses data obtained by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) TIROS-N satellite, interpreted by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, both at Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. The thick line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The cooling and warming periods directly influenced by the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption and the 1998 El Nio, respectively, are clearly visible. Reference period 1981-2010. Last month shown: July 2014. Last diagram update: 14 August 2014.
    But this was the question asked
    "you must present your repeatable real world experiment that shows how a atmosphere containing CO2 at 60 parts per million more than normal can heat it by around 1 degree"
    please let me know what substances I have to take to get your perspective?
    regards inter

  36. #11886
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    And a little more for those who want to redefine meanings....
    Scientific opinion
    "The scientific opinion" ....
    The definition works just fine for me, thank you anyway. But can you explain how the definition of the scientific opinion repudiates the scientific method (otherwise know as science)? Or is it that you do not understand that science and scientific opinion are two different things?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  37. #11887
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    But this was the question asked
    "you must present your repeatable real world experiment that shows how a atmosphere containing CO2 at 60 parts per million more than normal can heat it by around 1 degree"
    please let me know what substances I have to take to get your perspective?
    I think the substances you are taking now will work just fine if you apply yourself to it.

    As regards you experiment, the fundamental physics are all in place and are the basis of just about every technological advance in use today and few if any of which would have been possible without using the same logical deductions that are used in climate science. It's all irrelevant because it isn't a theory when in fact it can be, and is, measurable and measured directly.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  38. #11888
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    So when your scientists develop a theory about future CO2 concentrations & temperature they disregard the past CO2 concentrations & temperatures & include everything else that's irrelevant! Your argument is too stupid to even contemplate!
    Can you show us the proof that climate science disregards past CO2 concentrations and temperatures.

    You still haven't adequately supported your previous assertion. Rather than racing ahead with yet more unsupported BS, how about you show us that you are genuine and not just trolling.

    Where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got nothing!

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


  39. #11889
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Come woodbe, can't you recognise a genuine troll?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  40. #11890
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    The definition works just fine for me, thank you anyway. But can you explain how the definition of the scientific opinion repudiates the scientific method (otherwise know as science)? Or is it that you do not understand that science and scientific opinion are two different things?
    who would have expected anything less in your answer? A prime example laid out for all to see the intimate workings of cult behaviour!
    regards inter

  41. #11891
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    I think the substances you are taking now will work just fine if you apply yourself to it.

    As regards you experiment, the fundamental physics are all in place and are the basis of just about every technological advance in use today and few if any of which would have been possible without using the same logical deductions that are used in climate science. It's all irrelevant because it isn't a theory when in fact it can be, and is, measurable and measured directly.
    still no experiment to parrot then?
    regards inter

  42. #11892
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Is there any such thing as a genuine troll?

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


  43. #11893
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Can you show us the proof that climate science disregards past CO2 concentrations and temperatures.

    a couple of pages back, it was the climate history for the last 600 My, it shows the opposite reaction to warming / cooling from CO2 in both directions, now for science to disregard these periods they have to be fully explained & proved to be invalid, this hasn't occurred yet, so your followed science commentators are disregarding past history!

    You still haven't adequately supported your previous assertion. Rather than racing ahead with yet more unsupported BS, how about you show us that you are genuine and not just trolling.

    see above!

    Where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got nothing!

    What, I need to be like you fellows & parrot something that you can't understand? I haven't looked for any papers & I doubt I will, when it's just so easy to shoot down the AGW CO2 theory, at the end of the day historic data wins hands down over imaginary data!
    inter

  44. #11894
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Is there any such thing as a genuine troll?
    If you can't handle the easy questions you could always chuck a tanty & take your bat & ball home!

  45. #11895
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe
    Can you show us the proof that climate science disregards past CO2 concentrations and temperatures.
    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6
    a couple of pages back, it was the climate history for the last 600 My, it shows the opposite reaction to warming / cooling from CO2 in both directions, now for science to disregard these periods they have to be fully explained & proved to be invalid, this hasn't occurred yet, so your followed science commentators are disregarding past history!
    No, that is not proof that climate science disregards past CO2 concentrations and temperatures, you also are not quoting science, you are holding a graphic up to support your opinion. That just shows that you don't understand that climate science investigates all the drivers of the climate.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe
    You still haven't adequately supported your previous assertion. Rather than racing ahead with yet more unsupported BS, how about you show us that you are genuine and not just trolling.
    see above!
    Cop out. You're not doing the hard yards to support your claims about climate science. Your assertions are baseless.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe
    Where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got nothing!
    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6
    What, I need to be like you fellows & parrot something that you can't understand? I haven't looked for any papers & I doubt I will, when it's just so easy to shoot down the AGW CO2 theory, at the end of the day historic data wins hands down over imaginary data!
    So you are giving in on this assertion then? You can't find any scientific papers that show climate science is based on opinion? You make claims and you cannot back them up. You've now got less than nothing!

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


  46. #11896
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Is a troll interested only in obfuscation, antagonisation and not in participating in a debate? Might that mean they get stuck on a couple of issues despite a lack of corroborative evidence and an avalanche of contradictory evidence, meaning they can not contribute anything meaningful to advance their tightly help position and have to resort to personal attacks, snide remarks, innuendoes, calls to authority and evasion of the obvious? If some one behaved like that in a discussion about climate science, that might define them as a *genuine* troll.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  47. #11897
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Key points on the science

    • The earth’s climate is always changing – it has for 4.5 billion years and will continue to do so – to speak of climate change as if it is something “new” is misleading.
    • There is nothing particularly special about the climate we live in at the moment – it is very benign compared to some of the alternatives – but to attempt to stop the clock and “freeze” the present state is misguided.
    • That the earth is currently in a long-term warming phase is not in dispute. It has been since the end of the last Ice Age, and in particular since the end of the Little Ice Age a couple of hundred years ago. It is therefore not surprising, nor alarming, that temperatures today are higher than they were a century ago.
    • However, the cause of that warming is where the dispute arises.
    • There is no historical link (on geological time scales) between the harmless gas carbon dioxide (CO2) and temperature. Levels of CO2 have been far higher (thousands of parts per million compared to a few hundred at present) in the past without the planet entering “runaway global warming” or passing “tipping points” from which it could not recover – the fact that we are here today is evidence enough of that.
    • Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth showed a large graph of temperature and CO2 fitting together very closely, except that it was at such a small scale that it was not possible to determine that rises in CO2 actually lag behind rises in temperature (and vice versa) by about 800-1000 years. The long term warming and cooling of oceans releases and absorbs huge quantities of CO2.

    ACM Summary – Australian Climate Madness
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  48. #11898
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Key points on the science
    I got all excited when I began to read your post "key points on the science", but the post is completely devoid of science. You should have started with "Key points of the dogma pushed by AGW climate change deniers".



    • The earth’s climate is always changing - which is irrelevant drivel in the current context which is not about natural climate change, but the climate change caused by human activity that is imposed on top.
    • ...to attempt to stop the clock and “freeze” the present state is misguided - unless you want a habitable environment for your later life and the lives of your offspring.
    • ...It is therefore not surprising, nor alarming, that temperatures today are higher than they were a century ago - but it is alarming that the temperature rise has been much greater that natural forcings acting on their own.
    • However, the cause of that warming is where the dispute arises - amongst the armchair experts maybe, but there is no dispute in the scientific community that studies climate change.
    • There is no historical link (on geological time scales) between the harmless gas carbon dioxide (CO2) and temperature - maybe true if you ignore the other parameters of global warming because CO2 has never acted on its own, which anyone who studies climate forcings knows.
    • ...The long term warming and cooling of oceans releases and absorbs huge quantities of CO2 - the point of this statements seems to be obfuscation. Of course the cycle of CO2 and heat into and out of the oceans is a key player in climate.


    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  49. #11899
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    • Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth showed a large graph of temperature and CO2 fitting together very closely, except that it was at such a small scale that it was not possible to determine that rises in CO2 actually lag behind rises in temperature (and vice versa) by about 800-1000 years. The long term warming and cooling of oceans releases and absorbs huge quantities of CO2.
    • On shorter time-scales, temperatures rose in the early part of the 20th century with little or no man-made emissions of CO2.
    • They also fell in the period 1950-1970 when CO2 emissions were rising rapidly in the post-war economic boom.
    • The link between future global warming and CO2 is based predominantly on computer climate models.
    • None of the computer models predicted the pause in warming (and even slight cooling) we have seen since 2001, despite rising emissions, so we must assume those models are flawed.
    • There must be other factors at work, such as solar variations, cosmic ray variations, cloud cover, ocean currents etc, which have a far more significant effect on the climate than anthropogenic CO2 (which in any event is only a tiny part of the global CO2 budget)
    • Every day, new peer-reviewed scientific studies change our understanding of the climate – to say the “science is settled” is pure hubris.
    • The livelihood of many (most?) climate scientists depends on perpetuating the existence of the climate crisis, and there is presently a worrying lack of impartiality in this discipline.
    • ACM Summary – Australian Climate Madness
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  50. #11900
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Key points on the politics

    • There seems to be, amongst Western societies generally, a desire to “do something” in order to assuage our collective guilt for 200 years of economic progress (although why we should feel guilty about this is a mystery, since that economic progress has lifted billions of people out of a miserable life of poverty).
    • For some reason we are embarrassed about our standards of living, and believe that we must engage in a quasi-religious penitence for the sins we have committed against the planet (see here for an excellent comparison between climate change hysteria and religion).
    • History shows us that environmental causes have often been used to advance political agenda.
    • The present climate “crisis” unfortunately provides such an opportunity for:
      • more global governance and regulation by the UN;
      • a redistribution of wealth on a global scale from richer to poorer nations;
      • widespread increases in taxation at the expense of economic growth and prosperity;
      • a scaling back of Western economic progress; and ultimately,
      • a dismantling of capitalist systems (anti-globalisation)


    • This is evidenced by the allegiances of environmental (“green”) and/or climate change activists, many of whom align themselves with socialist ideals (witness the composition of demonstrators at climate change protests – primarily from the political left).
    • http://australianclimatemadness.com/acm-summary/
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

Page 238 of 377 FirstFirst ... 138 188 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 288 338 ... 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
  •