http://www.smh.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html

Darwin and other parts of Northern Australia have just had their coldest May on record.

According to weatherzone.com.au, Darwin's average temperatures were more than two degrees colder than average by night and more than a degree colder than average by day, with overnight minimum's averaging 19.9 degrees, and daytime maximums just under 31 degrees.

It turned out to be the coldest May on record, equal with May 1960, averaging just 25.3 degrees, almost two degrees colder than the long-term norm.

"The cold has affected every district in the Northern Territory”, Weatherzone meteorologist Brett Dutschke told The Age.

“This is due to persistent south-easterly winds which have been very dry, a result of three major cold fronts across south-eastern Australia in the last three weeks," Mr Dutschke said.

Katherine also had its coldest May in more than 20 years, with average overnight minimums at just 14 degrees, about two-and-a-half degrees colder than the long-term average.

Katherine's daytime maximums averaged just under 30 degrees, more than two degrees colder than the long-term average.

Alyangula on Groote Eylandt, Wollogorang and Tennant Creek all had record cold May nights. Alice Springs also had a cold May, with combined daytime and overnight temperatures the lowest in 11 years.

Key words are

(1) Lowest in 11 years

(2) Lower than long term averages

But I thought it was too late

Why is it colder when supposedly carbon emissions have increased dramatically

Lefties will now switch from "Global Warming" to "Global Cooling"

Extremes at both ends of the scale.
But why bother eh Maqqa it's all weather and no climate.
Changes every minute

I'll let you have that one again dsmithy

especially the issue about weather and climate

I am stringing perception and astro along on this issue but you are welcome to join the the game

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 7:35pm:

Extremes at both ends of the scale. But why bother eh Maqqa it's all weather and no climate. Changes every minute

How many months of weather is a climate?

Hot months indicate a trend of warming climate. Cold months are just weather.

Soren wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 7:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 7:35pm: Extremes at both ends of the scale. But why bother eh Maqqa it's all weather and no climate. Changes every minute How many months of weather is a climate? Hot months indicate a trend of warming climate. Cold months are just weather.

When have monthly weather patterns been quoted?
It's always the total temperature average over the year against other years and from memory temperature continues to increase in that area.

Yes, the cold weather is due to global warming.
Perhaps it should be now known as global cooling, as afterall the scientific models can be manipulated just as easily to prove that the earth is cooling.


And, remember in summer when we had some hot days, the global warming nutters were shouting from the roof tops that the hot weather was due to global warming.
They just refused to accept that it was summer weather.


Well, now it is approaching winter weather so the cold weather MUST be due to global warming!!!

As long as we are on the topic of WEATHER and CLIMATE

Lets explore first the cause of WEATHER

What are the key ingredients of WEATHER?

Temperature (from the Sun) and concentration of moisture in one place compared to another

So where does Carbon come into this when carbon represents 0.004% of the atmosphere?

How does 0.004% impact the concentration of moisture

creep wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 8:05pm:

Yes, the cold weather is due to global warming. Perhaps it should be now known as global cooling, as afterall the scientific models can be manipulated just as easily to prove that the earth is cooling. And, remember in summer when we had some hot days, the global warming nutters were shouting from the roof tops that the hot weather was due to global warming. They just refused to accept that it was summer weather. Well, now it is approaching winter weather so the cold weather MUST be due to global warming!!!

EXTREMES AT BOTH ENDS
I have never nor will never quote a single event as climate change.
What others do is their business.

Maqqa wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 8:13pm:

As long as we are on the topic of WEATHER and CLIMATE Lets explore first the cause of WEATHER What are the key ingredients of WEATHER? Temperature (from the Sun) and concentration of moisture in one place compared to another So where does Carbon come into this when carbon represents 0.004% of the atmosphere? How does 0.004% impact the concentration of moisture

From memory(and no I'm not going searching) the CO2 in the atmosphere traps the reflected heat from the earth and prevents it from escaping back into space.
Causing more melting of icecaps and therefore less reflection of light and more heat which is in turn absorded by the oceans, etc etc.
But there's plenty of info out there if you really want to know(which I know you don't ;))

Yes naughty! it`s called.

CLIMATE CHANGE!

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 8:21pm:

From memory(and no I'm not going searching) the CO2 in the atmosphere traps the reflected heat from the earth and prevents it from escaping back into space. Causing more melting of icecaps and therefore less reflection of light and more heat which is in turn absorded by the oceans, etc etc. But there's plenty of info out there if you really want to know(which I know you don't ;))

Partially correct.

The global warmists initially claimed that the Co2 was trapped and therefore caused more ice in the Arctic.
Then they saw that teh Arctic had indeed melted.
SO teh global warmists changed their model so that it would show that the Arctic was melting.
But the global warmists have ignored the Antartic. And the Antartic is 2-3 times the size of the Arctic.
The ANtartcis is growing.
Strange that the same global warming model used for the Arctic is not able to explain the growth of the Antartic.


Now, the Co2 doesnt escape and actually is like a blanket over the oceans.
And that causes an increase in evaporation of the oceans.
But where does that water vapour go to?
The global warmists deny that the water vapour becomes clouds, as if they admitted that then that destroys the whole global warming argument.
As the global warming scientists admit that if the increase in water vapour (a 2% increase within 50 years) becomes cloud then there is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
So where's the water vapour go, if not turning into clouds?

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 8:21pm:

From memory(and no I'm not going searching) the CO2 in the atmosphere traps the reflected heat from the earth and prevents it from escaping back into space. Causing more melting of icecaps and therefore less reflection of light and more heat which is in turn absorded by the oceans, etc etc. But there's plenty of info out there if you really want to know(which I know you don't ;))

0.004% carbon in the atmosphere traps that much heat inside to melt polar ice caps?

so what happened during the ice age when everything was reflected?

and when ice started to melt (with no humans was around) how did it heat up again?

if your reflection theory is true the Earth wouldn't heat up after the first ice age - no humans and no heat from the sun

Maqqa wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 8:28pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 8:21pm: From memory(and no I'm not going searching) the CO2 in the atmosphere traps the reflected heat from the earth and prevents it from escaping back into space. Causing more melting of icecaps and therefore less reflection of light and more heat which is in turn absorded by the oceans, etc etc. But there's plenty of info out there if you really want to know(which I know you don't ;)) 0.004% carbon in the atmosphere traps that much heat inside to melt polar ice caps? so what happened during the ice age when everything was reflected? and when ice started to melt (with no humans was around) how did it heat up again? if your reflection theory is true the Earth wouldn't heat up after the first ice age - no humans and no heat from the sun

The global warmists cling to the Arctic melting, but how do they explain the Antartic growing in size?

Maqqa wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 8:28pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 8:21pm: From memory(and no I'm not going searching) the CO2 in the atmosphere traps the reflected heat from the earth and prevents it from escaping back into space. Causing more melting of icecaps and therefore less reflection of light and more heat which is in turn absorded by the oceans, etc etc. But there's plenty of info out there if you really want to know(which I know you don't ;)) 0.004% carbon in the atmosphere traps that much heat inside to melt polar ice caps? so what happened during the ice age when everything was reflected? and when ice started to melt (with no humans was around) how did it heat up again? if your reflection theory is true the Earth wouldn't heat up after the first ice age - no humans and no heat from the sun

I'm not playing your game Maqqa, I have a little dig every now and then but that's it.
You choose not to believe(for want of a better word)I choose to back the scienists.
My closing argument as always is even if the science is wrong how is changing from a finite reasouce & polluting economy and energy production to clean renewable one a bad thing?
I am yet to get an answer.

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 8:42pm:

I'm not playing your game Maqqa, I have a little dig every now and then but that's it. You choose not to believe(for want of a better word)I choose to back the scienists. My closing argument as always is even if the science is wrong how is changing from a finite reasouce & polluting economy and energy production to clean renewable one a bad thing? I am yet to get an answer.

Is the science wrong?
The scientists change their models in order to justify their view.
The scientists changed the model for the Arctic - why?

And why doesn't the new model for the Arctic also explain why the Antartic is growing?


Why not refer to the scientists from the IPCC, as afterall they are meant to be the world's leaders. And those scientists have a completely different perspective to the one by the global warming alarmists!

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 7:35pm:

Extremes at both ends of the scale. But why bother eh Maqqa it's all weather and no climate. Changes every minute

Exactly. Morons like this aren't worth the energy expended to explain basic poo to them, they'll just ignore it anyway and keep repeating the same lie again and again. It's a very deep seated anti intellectualism, I just hope people like that aren't breeding or the gene pool is going to be really screwed in a few centuries.

I'm not playing your game Maqqa, I have a little dig every now and then but that's it.
You choose not to believe(for want of a better word)I choose to back the scienists.
My closing argument as always is even if the science is wrong how is changing from a finite reasouce & polluting economy and energy production to clean renewable one a bad thing?
I am yet to get an answer.



smithy I dont think too many of us are against doing what it takes to clean things up.. especially in our industries..we can do better and we should do better..

but to put a heap of so called pollitician from around the world who cant even balance their budgets.. get into all sorts of huge debts..due to bad management and no skills...

I cant believe we are sucked in by this... you say you believe the scientists...


thats a laugh... since when are the scientists in charge?????..

we are being told by an economist what to do..laughable. and so would every other country be... its all about MONEY I have said that since day one..


dont tell me with a bit of organisation industry could not be fixed without being threatend...

with a worldwide.. all together now attitude.

give industry say 3 years to do the right thing...[ btw I dont think it will make one iota of difference to GW}..and clean up their emmissions..after that if they havent done a thing.. close them down..


lets be honest there are industries and then there are industries... everything has a different problem....


have we looked into the emmissions caused by RE... like into the making of the equipment for starters...I believe windmills use an enormous amount of water and cement..each one...I have also read where its expensive... what do they mean by expensive????...

the say coal fired power is cheap... well tell you what it aint to me!

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 8:42pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 8:28pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 8:21pm: From memory(and no I'm not going searching) the CO2 in the atmosphere traps the reflected heat from the earth and prevents it from escaping back into space. Causing more melting of icecaps and therefore less reflection of light and more heat which is in turn absorded by the oceans, etc etc. But there's plenty of info out there if you really want to know(which I know you don't ;)) 0.004% carbon in the atmosphere traps that much heat inside to melt polar ice caps? so what happened during the ice age when everything was reflected? and when ice started to melt (with no humans was around) how did it heat up again? if your reflection theory is true the Earth wouldn't heat up after the first ice age - no humans and no heat from the sun I'm not playing your game Maqqa, I have a little dig every now and then but that's it. You choose not to believe(for want of a better word)I choose to back the scienists. My closing argument as always is even if the science is wrong how is changing from a finite reasouce & polluting economy and energy production to clean renewable one a bad thing? I am yet to get an answer.

Oh, damn, this is just too good to ignore!  ;D

0.004% carbon in the atmosphere traps that much heat inside to melt polar ice caps?

YES! And if you really want I can provide the maths that prove it! You can't argue with maths but I bet you'll still try to deny it!

so what happened during the ice age when everything was reflected?

What do you mean? More heat got reflected and the planet got even colder, it's called a feedback mechanism. In the event of Snowball Earth (look it up) this effect caused runaway cooling and the planet turned into a giant snowball. Which leads us to your next question...

and when ice started to melt (with no humans was around) how did it heat up again?

In the case of the Snowball period, CO2 from volcanoes!!!!! :D :D :D irony much, 'tard? ;D ;D ;D

In the 'normal' ice ages, it is changes in the orbit of the sun, but the warming that causes is too weak to warm the planet to the degree that it does, the only thing that CAN warm it to the degree that it does is THE RELEASE OF CO2 THE WARMING CAUSES!!!!!!!

But you are a reality denying moron and will completely ignore what I just told you, but at least everyone else can see just hpw much of an ignorant douche bag that you really are! ;D ;D ;D

if your reflection theory is true the Earth wouldn't heat up after the first ice age - no humans and no heat from the sun

The ocean. It locks up CO2 when it freezes then releases it when it melts again. If CO2 DOESN'T  cause warming then the planet would NEVER reach the balmy conditions we enjoy today, the whole planet would be a big ball of ice.

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 8:42pm:

I'm not playing your game Maqqa, I have a little dig every now and then but that's it. You choose not to believe(for want of a better word)I choose to back the scienists. My closing argument as always is even if the science is wrong how is changing from a finite reasouce & polluting economy and energy production to clean renewable one a bad thing? I am yet to get an answer.

The answer is simple

Business diversify to stay alive

Microsoft just bought Skype - why?

Despite popular belief Oil companies do invest in new technologies to achieve better efficiencies as well as ways to transition to a new energy source

Why do they do this?

(1) Business is about a distribution channel
(2) To extend the life of their limited stock they are distributing
(3) The issue is about control of a technology and distribute it - that's how they make money

This is how business survive in the long term

ARAMCO is a perfect example of this - look at their investment portfolio. Look at where they are diversifying their money

astro_surf wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 9:05pm:

and when ice started to melt (with no humans was around) how did it heat up again? In the case of the Snowball period, CO2 from volcanoes!!!!! :D :D :D irony much, 'tard? ;D ;D ;D

So the Earth heat up due to volcanoes huh?

Any volcanoes erupting in the last 100 years?


:D :D :D :D :D

Maqqa wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 9:17pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:05pm: and when ice started to melt (with no humans was around) how did it heat up again? In the case of the Snowball period, CO2 from volcanoes!!!!! :D :D :D irony much, 'tard? ;D ;D ;D So the Earth heat up due to volcanoes huh? Any volcanoes erupting in the last 100 years? :D :D :D :D :D

Yes, you smacking spastic, go and watch a doco on basic geology or something. But it happens over a GEOLOGICAL TIMEFRAME, in the SHORT TERM volcanoes have a COOLING INLUENCE but if you have enough volcanoes over a few hundred thousand years on a planet buried under two miles of ice then CO2 will accumulate and cause the planet to WARM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jyUna9LqZg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX3pHD7NH58

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ6KxK5mxwQ

But, of course, you DENY all of this because it doesn't fit your politics!!! :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The sea level was about 120 metres below today's level until about 15,000 years ago. Tasmania was not an island and there was no Bering Strait between Siberia and Alaska.

The ice over northern hemisphere melted relatively rapidly and sea levels rose quickly. None of this was due to CO2.

Going back 150,000 years, what happened to all the CO2, where did it all go to bring about the ice age?

Some right wing grandchild hater in Wikipedia says "The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age."

You probably understand how ice ages come and go.  Please explain. And don't forget to correct the Wiki.

:D :D :D :D :D

The irony is totally lost on you hasn't it astro

;D ;D ;D

If volcanoes can cause such climate shifts then it shoots Bob Brown's argument out of the water that humans are the cause of climate change

cods posted a comment from a Professor of Geology the other day saying that the eruption in Iceland recently has blunt all the emission efforts for the last 5 years

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So how many volcanic eruptions have we had in the last 100 years?

Maqqa wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 7:29pm:

Key words are (1) Lowest in 11 years (2) Lower than long term averages But I thought it was too late Why is it colder when supposedly carbon emissions have increased dramatically Lefties will now switch from "Global Warming" to "Global Cooling"

High Priest Greg Combet somehow connects hot summers with climate change/global warming. I wonder what he'll say about the coldest May on record? High Priest Greg Combet also quoted a passage from his book "Shyte, I'm Scared" when he said that we would experience reduced rainfall. I hope he doesn't tell Queenslanders.


Quote:

The Challenge of Climate Change The case for action on climate change begins with the science. The Government accepts the fundamental conclusions of the science: that climate change is real, and that human activity is contributing significantly through carbon pollution, and that if emissions continue to grow without restraint, our climate could change in ways that present grave risks to our economy, our environment, and our way of life. And those risks fall most heavily on our children and their children. Whilst some try to deflect attention by focusing on short term weather patterns, the climate trends are clear. Australia is already experiencing some of the impacts of climate change, through hotter summers, reduced rainfall, reduced river inflows - and further impacts cannot be avoided. There have already been more days over 43.6°C in Melbourne this century than for the whole of the last century. And it will get worse. Melbourne currently experiences an average of 9 days above 35°C per year. This is projected to increase to 12-26 days by 2070. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/minister/greg-combet/2010/major-speeches/October/sp20101012.aspx

People are free to masturbate but I wish some people would desist for just one day each week.

Soren wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 9:31pm:

Some right wing grandchild hater in Wikipedia says "The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age."

And the it goes on to say, you big ol' cherry picking, lying piece of poo you!


Quote:

The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial-interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane). The specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from the Antarctic shelf over the past 650,000 years;[citation needed] changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.[citation needed] Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in Earth's atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at which weathering removes CO2).

Quote:

The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age.

Massive fail.


Quote:

You probably understand how ice ages come and go.  Please explain. And don't forget to correct the Wiki.

If you'd read the quote you selectively cited above BEYOND the bit that appeared to confirm your existing biases, you would NEED me to explain the Milankovitch Cycle to you! ;D ;D ;D

Maqqa wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 9:34pm:

:D :D :D :D :D The irony is totally lost on you hasn't it astro ;D ;D ;D If volcanoes can cause such climate shifts then it shoots Bob Brown's argument out of the water that humans are the cause of climate change cods posted a comment from a Professor of Geology the other day saying that the eruption in Iceland recently has blunt all the emission efforts for the last 5 years ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D So how many volcanic eruptions have we had in the last 100 years?

Nooo, actually, the basic scientific facts are lost on you. VOLCANOES HAVE A SHORT TERM COOLING EFFECT, YOU smacking NUMPTY, VOLCANOES ONLY WARM OVER HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

IAN PLIMER IS A KNOWN LIAR, PORTUGAL EMITTED MORE CO2 in 2010 THAN THE ICELAND VOLCANO EMITTED.

Maqqa wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 9:14pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 8:42pm: I'm not playing your game Maqqa, I have a little dig every now and then but that's it. You choose not to believe(for want of a better word)I choose to back the scienists. My closing argument as always is even if the science is wrong how is changing from a finite reasouce & polluting economy and energy production to clean renewable one a bad thing? I am yet to get an answer. The answer is simple Business diversify to stay alive Microsoft just bought Skype - why? Despite popular belief Oil companies do invest in new technologies to achieve better efficiencies as well as ways to transition to a new energy source Why do they do this? (1) Business is about a distribution channel (2) To extend the life of their limited stock they are distributing (3) The issue is about control of a technology and distribute it - that's how they make money This is how business survive in the long term ARAMCO is a perfect example of this - look at their investment portfolio. Look at where they are diversifying their money

Yes I am aware where the oil companies are investing.
But we have a chance to halt at somewhere around 2 degree's instead of catastrophoric.
We cant wait for the rich to get there ducks in a line it requires the sort of money in R&D only government can provide.
Short term widespread pain for massive gain in the medium to long term, a old fashioned political thought I know.

Maqqa wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 9:34pm:

:D :D :D :D :D The irony is totally lost on you hasn't it astro ;D ;D ;D If volcanoes can cause such climate shifts then it shoots Bob Brown's argument out of the water that humans are the cause of climate change cods posted a comment from a Professor of Geology the other day saying that the eruption in Iceland recently has blunt all the emission efforts for the last 5 years ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D So how many volcanic eruptions have we had in the last 100 years?

The response will be:
The world is flat maqqa, the sun revolves around the arth. Anyone who tells you differently is a liar!


LOL

Anyone notice how Maqqa has strategically flooded the forum with multiple climate threads so that any kind of serious refutation of his denial is lost in an onslaught of vacuousness brain farts. It's an effective strategy because coming up with mindlessly ignorant points is a lot easier than explaining the complexities of a dynamic system, so he can flood the forums with a lot less energy than it takes to respond to his idiocy.

Also, he appears to be an unemployed bludger living of the tit of the taxpayer. it's always comforting to know that my efforts of slaving away 40 hours a week are subsidising parasites like Maqqa to spread their anti-intellectual bile on teh interwebz ::)

creep wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 10:08pm:

The response will be: The world is flat maqqa, the sun revolves around the arth. Anyone who tells you differently is a liar! LOL

For all intents and purposes, wouldn't that be something a conservative fool believe? Or at least demand we teach to children?

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 9:53pm:

But we have a chance to halt at somewhere around 2 degree's instead of catastrophoric.

We're pretty much past that point now, our only hope is going to be 4 degrees and even if we can actually achieve that the future is going to be very grim indeed.

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 8:16pm:

creep wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 8:05pm: Yes, the cold weather is due to global warming. Perhaps it should be now known as global cooling, as afterall the scientific models can be manipulated just as easily to prove that the earth is cooling. And, remember in summer when we had some hot days, the global warming nutters were shouting from the roof tops that the hot weather was due to global warming. They just refused to accept that it was summer weather. Well, now it is approaching winter weather so the cold weather MUST be due to global warming!!! EXTREMES AT BOTH ENDS I have never nor will never quote a single event as climate change. What others do is their business.

I'll quote THIS one ?


Record high temperatures settle over Interior Alaska
May 27, 2011

FAIRBANKS — It’s Memorial Day weekend in Interior Alaska, so it must be time for another record-breaking heat wave.

One year after Fairbanks set a record high temperature of 82 degrees on May 27, 2010, temperatures soared to 85 degrees. The city wasn’t alone — Tanana, Bettles, Kaltag, Nenana, Eagle and Big Delta also saw record highs set last year replaced by new records Friday.

Fairbanks’ 85-degree mark was just five degrees shy of the all-time May record, set this date in 1947, and is the highest May temperature since May 11, 1995.

http://newsminer.com/bookmark/13479127





Climate change in a "nut-sack"

EXTREMES at EITHER end of the seasonal scale



And global AVERAGES this decade - will be HIGHER than that of the PREVIOUS one

As has been the pattern for the last FIVE

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 10:10pm:

creep wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 10:08pm: The response will be: The world is flat maqqa, the sun revolves around the arth. Anyone who tells you differently is a liar! LOL For all intents and purposes, wouldn't that be something a conservative fool believe?

Which is why you believe that. LOL

astro_surf wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 10:14pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:53pm: But we have a chance to halt at somewhere around 2 degree's instead of catastrophoric. We're pretty much past that point now, our only hope is going to be 4 degrees and even if we can actually achieve that the future is going to be very grim indeed.

Yeah I was ever the optimist :D
Perhaps Tony should go the miltary spending angle.
After all as water disappears and crops fail, low lying countries like Bangladesh become uninhaditable,refo's will be arriving by the ship not boat load.
Taxing our already arid environment, we'll need plenty of frigates and torpeado's to keep back the great unwashed :(

Maqqa wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 9:17pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:05pm: and when ice started to melt (with no humans was around) how did it heat up again? In the case of the Snowball period, CO2 from volcanoes!!!!! :D :D :D irony much, 'tard? ;D ;D ;D So the Earth heat up due to volcanoes huh? Any volcanoes erupting in the last 100 years? :D :D :D :D :D

Didn't do Calculas did ya mate???????  :D :D :D ;D ;D :o :o :o :o :o :o

astro_surf wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 9:29pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:17pm: astro_surf wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:05pm: and when ice started to melt (with no humans was around) how did it heat up again? In the case of the Snowball period, CO2 from volcanoes!!!!! :D :D :D irony much, 'tard? ;D ;D ;D So the Earth heat up due to volcanoes huh? Any volcanoes erupting in the last 100 years? :D :D :D :D :D Yes, you smacking spastic, go and watch a doco on basic geology or something. But it happens over a GEOLOGICAL TIMEFRAME, in the SHORT TERM volcanoes have a COOLING INLUENCE but if you have enough volcanoes over a few hundred thousand years on a planet buried under two miles of ice then CO2 will accumulate and cause the planet to WARM. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jyUna9LqZg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX3pHD7NH58 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ6KxK5mxwQ But, of course, you DENY all of this because it doesn't fit your politics!!! :D  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

HE HASN'T DONE CALCULUS: HE DON'T UNDERSTAND RATES OF CHANGE!  :D :D :D

DRUG DEALERS UNDERSTAND THIS STUFF SO HE OBVIOUSLY ISN'T ONE OF THOSE EITHER!  :D ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) :o 8-)

Maqqa wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 9:17pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:05pm: and when ice started to melt (with no humans was around) how did it heat up again? In the case of the Snowball period, CO2 from volcanoes!!!!! :D :D :D irony much, 'tard? ;D ;D ;D So the Earth heat up due to volcanoes huh? Any volcanoes erupting in the last 100 years? :D :D :D :D :D

Which comes straight back to 3% human CO2 emissions is statistically insignificant compared to the earth dynamic 97% CO2 emissions.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 1:14am:

Maqqa wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:17pm: astro_surf wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:05pm: and when ice started to melt (with no humans was around) how did it heat up again? In the case of the Snowball period, CO2 from volcanoes!!!!! :D :D :D irony much, 'tard? ;D ;D ;D So the Earth heat up due to volcanoes huh? Any volcanoes erupting in the last 100 years? :D :D :D :D :D Which comes straight back to 3% human CO2 emissions is statistically insignificant compared to the earth dynamic 97% CO2 emissions.

ooh, buddy, you are forgetting the carbon sinks and then there is the whole issue of ecosystem balance. There was a whole interview on INSIGHT just for you tonight that did indeed address this exact question!!! YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN HOW MANY TIMES THE BLOKE WHO ASKED THE QUESTION AND GOT SEVERAL ANSWERS TO IT TRIED PRETENDING IN FRONT OF THOUSANDS HOW HE STILL THOUGHT THE INTERVIEWEE WAS AVOIDING THE QUESTION!!

MAN, IT WAS A CRACK UP!!!

Jeez loise: do you expect another 50 billion characters worth of others slaving away to do your homework for you!??!

There's this thing called google.... seriously: IGNORANCE IS IGNORANCE!!!  ::)

astro_surf wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 10:14pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:53pm: But we have a chance to halt at somewhere around 2 degree's instead of catastrophoric. We're pretty much past that point now, our only hope is going to be 4 degrees and even if we can actually achieve that the future is going to be very grim indeed.

You better hide under your bed then, the sky's falling in. ;D ;D ;D

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 1:14am:

Which comes straight back to 3% human CO2 emissions is statistically insignificant compared to the earth dynamic 97% CO2 emissions.

Yes. Which has been explained to you ad nauseum yet you till deny it. Hence why you are a denier-tard and not anything even remotely resembling a sceptic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3SZKJVKRxQ

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 6:51am:

You better hide under your bed then, the sky's falling in. ;D ;D ;D

My God you people are stupid. You're in total denial.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 8:15am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 6:51am: You better hide under your bed then, the sky's falling in. ;D ;D ;D My God you people are stupid. You're in total denial.

One doesn't have to be stupid to deny something that hasn't happened.
So, back under your bed.

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 10:47pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 10:14pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:53pm: But we have a chance to halt at somewhere around 2 degree's instead of catastrophoric. We're pretty much past that point now, our only hope is going to be 4 degrees and even if we can actually achieve that the future is going to be very grim indeed. Yeah I was ever the optimist :D Perhaps Tony should go the miltary spending angle. After all as water disappears and crops fail, low lying countries like Bangladesh become uninhaditable,refo's will be arriving by the ship not boat load. Taxing our already arid environment, we'll need plenty of frigates and torpeado's to keep back the great unwashed :(

Aren't we still waiting for the 50 million climate change refugees that were due last year?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 8:24am:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 8:15am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 6:51am: You better hide under your bed then, the sky's falling in. ;D ;D ;D My God you people are stupid. You're in total denial. One doesn't have to be stupid to deny something that hasn't happened. So, back under your bed.

No, you ARE stupid and you ARE in denial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc

Maqqa wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 7:29pm:

[size=16]Key words are (1) Lowest in 11 years (2) Lower than long term averages But I thought it was too late Why is it colder when supposedly carbon emissions have increased dramatically Lefties will now switch from "Global Warming" to "Global Cooling"[/si ze]

I love it when the retards show they dont know the difference between climate and weather, sooooooooooo funny. ;D ;D ;D I'll bet this fool failed 3rd class science.

I just had a quick read of this topic and please tell me if I missed it, but maqqa's question to astro of how many eruption of volcanos has there been over the last 100 years. Now I have seen people say they believe in the science, but if that being so they would know the science and have such an answer. but I also know for a fact mankind does not have the answer to this very question.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 8:26am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 10:47pm: astro_surf wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 10:14pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:53pm: But we have a chance to halt at somewhere around 2 degree's instead of catastrophoric. We're pretty much past that point now, our only hope is going to be 4 degrees and even if we can actually achieve that the future is going to be very grim indeed. Yeah I was ever the optimist :D Perhaps Tony should go the miltary spending angle. After all as water disappears and crops fail, low lying countries like Bangladesh become uninhaditable,refo's will be arriving by the ship not boat load. Taxing our already arid environment, we'll need plenty of frigates and torpeado's to keep back the great unwashed :( Aren't we still waiting for the 50 million climate change refugees that were due last year?

Who said that?????
Link would be good, or did you just make it up?

astro_surf wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 8:14am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 1:14am: Which comes straight back to 3% human CO2 emissions is statistically insignificant compared to the earth dynamic 97% CO2 emissions. Yes. Which has been explained to you ad nauseum yet you till deny it. Hence why you are a denier-tard and not anything even remotely resembling a sceptic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3SZKJVKRxQ

Not only is our 3% statistically insignificant against the other 97%, it is also insignificant to the Nth degree against the cycles of earth.
11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )


BTW if you rely on videos like that, there is no wonder you dont have a clue on what I am talking about.

skippy. wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 8:35am:

Maqqa wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 7:29pm: [size=16]Key words are (1) Lowest in 11 years (2) Lower than long term averages But I thought it was too late Why is it colder when supposedly carbon emissions have increased dramatically Lefties will now switch from "Global Warming" to "Global Cooling"[/si ze] I love it when the retards show they dont know the difference between climate and weather, sooooooooooo funny. ;D ;D ;D I'll bet this fool failed 3rd class science.

skip I will put my hand up.... what is the difference bewtween weather and climate??????...as we have been told by the experts on here weather has nothing to do with climate.........so that means the sun amd the moon and wind have nothing to do with weather....

I am getting my head around that... as I never did meteorology or climatology in my day at school like so many on here have done. and of course your good self...I did look the word climate up in my seriously used dictionary... and unfortunately it mentioned the weather word.. so completely confused...

I can poromise you I would have failed 3rd class science... but was never given the chance to find out... a bit like this TAX...

I am thrilled to be surrounded by all you experts..on climate.


I am assuming that before manmade industry.... we didnt have weather it was all climate that changed the atmosphere over millions of years..is that so?


hu hum if you are unable to answer without the abuse...then you are excused..

Quote:

climate Dictionary.com cli·mate    /ˈklaɪmɪt/ Show Spelled[klahy-mit] Show IPA –noun 1. the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. 2. a region or area characterized by a given climate: to move to a warm climate. 3. the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest.

Quote:

weather - 6 dictionary results weath·er    /ˈwɛðər/ Show Spelled[weth-er] Show IPA –noun 1. the state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture, pressure, etc. 2. a strong wind or storm or strong winds and storms collectively: We've had some real weather this spring. 3. a weathercast: The radio announcer will read the weather right after the commercial.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 8:58am:

Quote: climate Dictionary.com cli·mate    /ˈklaɪmɪt/ Show Spelled[klahy-mit] Show IPA –noun 1. the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. 2. a region or area characterized by a given climate: to move to a warm climate. 3. the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest. [quote]weather - 6 dictionary results weath·er    /ˈwɛðər/ Show Spelled[weth-er] Show IPA –noun 1. the state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture, pressure, etc. 2. a strong wind or storm or strong winds and storms collectively: We've had some real weather this spring. 3. a weathercast: The radio announcer will read the weather right after the commercial.

[/quote]
Virtually the same expect not localized and is historical.

Quote:

skip I will put my hand up.... what is the difference bewtween weather and climate??????...as we have been told by the experts on here weather has nothing to do with climate.........so that means the sun amd the moon and wind have nothing to do with weather....

To put it simple, so as the likes of maqqa may also understand, weather changes daily, the climate changes slowly over years,decades and centuries.
Maqqas assertion that its been cold in May so climate change is a myth, is as stupid as saying, Britain is now tropical because it was 27 degrees there last week. Global warming will more than likely make Britain even colder, ever heard of the gulf stream and its impact ????
I'm no expert, but I finished high school with a bit of tertiary education thrown in as well, so I'm ahead of the confusionalists here when it comes to comprehension, but if you are serious about things like this, ask the likes of Muso, he's a wizz.

thanks smithy I did read that none the wiser...
]

this is my kind of science..


Where does rain come from?
Rain comes from clouds, the grey and white bits in the sky that aren’t seagulls. Just like seagulls, clouds eject liquid excretions through their bottoms. Cloud excrement is called rain. Seagull excrement is called there’s smacking bird poo all over my car again, have they got a smacking map that tells them where I’ve parked?, bastards.

What do clouds eat and drink?
When anything in nature consumes something else it takes the nutrients it can and the rest – the waste – is dumped. Your waste is formed from hamburgers, artichokes, and Singapore Slings, for example, and is called wee-wee and number twos. Clouds eat the flesh from passengers on board planes struck by lightning – all of which is subsumed and used by the clouds to feed its fluffy neural network of rage. Clouds also absorb water when the liquid evaporates, which it retains until it is accused of being fat; this is then rained upon you.

What is evaporation?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 8:44am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 8:26am: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 10:47pm: astro_surf wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 10:14pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:53pm: But we have a chance to halt at somewhere around 2 degree's instead of catastrophoric. We're pretty much past that point now, our only hope is going to be 4 degrees and even if we can actually achieve that the future is going to be very grim indeed. Yeah I was ever the optimist :D Perhaps Tony should go the miltary spending angle. After all as water disappears and crops fail, low lying countries like Bangladesh become uninhaditable,refo's will be arriving by the ship not boat load. Taxing our already arid environment, we'll need plenty of frigates and torpeado's to keep back the great unwashed :( Aren't we still waiting for the 50 million climate change refugees that were due last year? Who said that????? Link would be good, or did you just make it up?

www.theaustralian.com.au/...50-million-climate-refugees.../story-fn59niix- 1226042490227

They must still be coming eh.
Just like those melting Himalayan glaciers that are due to melt away by 2035.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 9:15am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 8:44am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 8:26am: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 10:47pm: astro_surf wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 10:14pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:53pm: But we have a chance to halt at somewhere around 2 degree's instead of catastrophoric. We're pretty much past that point now, our only hope is going to be 4 degrees and even if we can actually achieve that the future is going to be very grim indeed. Yeah I was ever the optimist :D Perhaps Tony should go the miltary spending angle. After all as water disappears and crops fail, low lying countries like Bangladesh become uninhaditable,refo's will be arriving by the ship not boat load. Taxing our already arid environment, we'll need plenty of frigates and torpeado's to keep back the great unwashed :( Aren't we still waiting for the 50 million climate change refugees that were due last year? Who said that????? Link would be good, or did you just make it up? www.theaustralian.com.au/...50-million-climate-refugees.../story-fn59niix- 1226042490227 They must still be coming eh. Just like those melting Himalayan glaciers that are due to melt away by 2035.

That link does not work.Someone must have pulled it when they realised it was total bullsh it, and they didn't want to look like wankers spreading such lies. The OZ opinion writers sure are buggers.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 8:44am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 8:26am: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 10:47pm: astro_surf wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 10:14pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:53pm: But we have a chance to halt at somewhere around 2 degree's instead of catastrophoric. We're pretty much past that point now, our only hope is going to be 4 degrees and even if we can actually achieve that the future is going to be very grim indeed. Yeah I was ever the optimist :D Perhaps Tony should go the miltary spending angle. After all as water disappears and crops fail, low lying countries like Bangladesh become uninhaditable,refo's will be arriving by the ship not boat load. Taxing our already arid environment, we'll need plenty of frigates and torpeado's to keep back the great unwashed :( Aren't we still waiting for the 50 million climate change refugees that were due last year? Who said that????? Link would be good, or did you just make it up?

That was the UN IPCC prediction of around 10 yeras ago. Now do you know why we mock the IPCC?

Quote:

Now do you know why we mock the IPCC?

No, but I know why many mock you, you believe opinion writers from the OZ who make sh it up and then delete it because their work is done once the morons  have read it.

astro_surf wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 9:48pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:34pm: :D :D :D :D :D The irony is totally lost on you hasn't it astro ;D ;D ;D If volcanoes can cause such climate shifts then it shoots Bob Brown's argument out of the water that humans are the cause of climate change cods posted a comment from a Professor of Geology the other day saying that the eruption in Iceland recently has blunt all the emission efforts for the last 5 years ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D So how many volcanic eruptions have we had in the last 100 years? Nooo, actually, the basic scientific facts are lost on you. VOLCANOES HAVE A SHORT TERM COOLING EFFECT, YOU smacking NUMPTY, VOLCANOES ONLY WARM OVER HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS. IAN PLIMER IS A KNOWN LIAR, PORTUGAL EMITTED MORE CO2 in 2010 THAN THE ICELAND VOLCANO EMITTED.

This is the kind of garbage that discredits your position. you call people LIARS whom you disagree with. that is not a scientific position. it is a ZEALOTS position, the kind HYSTERICS  hold. Disagree with Pilmer if you want, but calling him a liar makes you a FOOL.

buzzanddidj wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 10:20pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 8:16pm: creep wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 8:05pm: Yes, the cold weather is due to global warming. Perhaps it should be now known as global cooling, as afterall the scientific models can be manipulated just as easily to prove that the earth is cooling. And, remember in summer when we had some hot days, the global warming nutters were shouting from the roof tops that the hot weather was due to global warming. They just refused to accept that it was summer weather. Well, now it is approaching winter weather so the cold weather MUST be due to global warming!!! EXTREMES AT BOTH ENDS I have never nor will never quote a single event as climate change. What others do is their business. I'll quote THIS one ? Record high temperatures settle over Interior Alaska May 27, 2011 FAIRBANKS — It’s Memorial Day weekend in Interior Alaska, so it must be time for another record-breaking heat wave. One year after Fairbanks set a record high temperature of 82 degrees on May 27, 2010, temperatures soared to 85 degrees. The city wasn’t alone — Tanana, Bettles, Kaltag, Nenana, Eagle and Big Delta also saw record highs set last year replaced by new records Friday. Fairbanks’ 85-degree mark was just five degrees shy of the all-time May record, set this date in 1947, and is the highest May temperature since May 11, 1995. http://newsminer.com/bookmark/13479127 Climate change in a "nut-sack" EXTREMES at EITHER end of the seasonal scale And global AVERAGES this decade - will be HIGHER than that of the PREVIOUS one As has been the pattern for the last FIVE

you missed the highlighted part which is the MOST IMPORTANT part. it states that is has been WARMER in 64 years ago.

skippy. wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 9:22am:

Quote: Now do you know why we mock the IPCC? No, but I know why many mock you, you believe opinion writers from the OZ who make sh it up and then delete it because their work is done once the morons  have read it.

so let me just get it in print from you./ you DONT believe the UN predicted 50million climate refugees by 2010?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/world-still-waiting-for-50-million-climate-refugees-by-2010/story-fn59niix-1226042490227

SUCK IT UP ROO_GIRL.

skippy. wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 9:18am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 9:15am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 8:44am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 8:26am: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 10:47pm: astro_surf wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 10:14pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:53pm: But we have a chance to halt at somewhere around 2 degree's instead of catastrophoric. We're pretty much past that point now, our only hope is going to be 4 degrees and even if we can actually achieve that the future is going to be very grim indeed. Yeah I was ever the optimist :D Perhaps Tony should go the miltary spending angle. After all as water disappears and crops fail, low lying countries like Bangladesh become uninhaditable,refo's will be arriving by the ship not boat load. Taxing our already arid environment, we'll need plenty of frigates and torpeado's to keep back the great unwashed :( Aren't we still waiting for the 50 million climate change refugees that were due last year? Who said that????? Link would be good, or did you just make it up? www.theaustralian.com.au/...50-million-climate-refugees.../story-fn59niix- 1226042490227 They must still be coming eh. Just like those melting Himalayan glaciers that are due to melt away by 2035. That link does not work.Someone must have pulled it when they realised it was total bullsh it, and they didn't want to look like wankers spreading such lies. The OZ opinion writers sure are buggers.

I just copied it out from your post, and it works.
Try again skip.

skippy. wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 9:22am:

Quote: Now do you know why we mock the IPCC? No, but I know why many mock you, you believe opinion writers from the OZ who make sh it up and then delete it because their work is done once the morons  have read it.

I am in total dispare I thought I was going to get a science lesson form thje best this morning...Hi Skip..didnt you read me this morning...

hey the weather/climate is okay here in downtown ACT this morning..a top of 15.. not sure who to credit that to though! I love a mystery

And you going into bat for Pilmer is stupid, your smarter than that.
It is well documented his papers are wrong & misleading.
I've pointed this out to you before why do you keep throwing a discredited name around?


Quote:

16 December 09 Ian Plimer exposed as a fraud Comment on this StoryEmail this story From Tim Lambert's Deltoid blog: "Ian Plimer's performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed. Rather than admit to making any error at all, Plimer ducks, weaves, obfuscates, recites his favourite catch phrase, tries to change the subject and fabricates some more. When confronted with the fact that the USGS says (backed with scientific papers) that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes, Plimer claims that the USGS doesn't count underwater volcanoes. When told that the USGS specifically said that they do count undersea volcanoes, Plimer invented a story about how the nature of the rocks under the ocean proves that there must be unobserved emissions. Needless to say, this is not acceptable conduct for a scientist." Check out the rest of Lambert's post here: Plimer exposed as a fraud Here is our research database entry on Ian Plimer.

http://www.desmogblog.com/ian-plimer-exposed-fraud

cods wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 9:42am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 9:22am: Quote: Now do you know why we mock the IPCC? No, but I know why many mock you, you believe opinion writers from the OZ who make sh it up and then delete it because their work is done once the morons  have read it. I am in total dispare I thought I was going to get a science lesson form thje best this morning...Hi Skip..didnt you read me this morning... hey the weather/climate is okay here in downtown ACT this morning..a top of 15.. not sure who to credit that to though! I love a mystery

INSIGHT  WAS WORTH WATCHING LAST NIGHT WITH THE CLIMATE SCIENTIST   ;) ;) ;)and the average people

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 9:44am:

And you going into bat for Pilmer is stupid, your smarter than that. It is well documented his papers are wrong & misleading. I've pointed this out to you before why do you keep throwing a discredited name around? Quote: 16 December 09 Ian Plimer exposed as a fraud Comment on this StoryEmail this story From Tim Lambert's Deltoid blog: "Ian Plimer's performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed. Rather than admit to making any error at all, Plimer ducks, weaves, obfuscates, recites his favourite catch phrase, tries to change the subject and fabricates some more. When confronted with the fact that the USGS says (backed with scientific papers) that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes, Plimer claims that the USGS doesn't count underwater volcanoes. When told that the USGS specifically said that they do count undersea volcanoes, Plimer invented a story about how the nature of the rocks under the ocean proves that there must be unobserved emissions. Needless to say, this is not acceptable conduct for a scientist." Check out the rest of Lambert's post here: Plimer exposed as a fraud Here is our research database entry on Ian Plimer. http://www.desmogblog.com/ian-plimer-exposed-fraud

your definition of 'fraud' is just as flaky. MISTAKES, even OBSTINATE mistakes do not make one a fraudster. it is these extreme deinfitions that muddy the water so much. this entire debate seeks to polarise everyone into two camps. mistakes become fraud. independent thought makes you a denier. scepticism is considered a sin. Isnt it about time we tolerated a diversity of opinion and embraced critical thinking and in fact CRITICISM itself? Pilmer is hardly a nobody with no reputation or qualifications.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 9:33am:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/world-still-waiting-for-50-million-climate-refugees-by-2010/story-fn59niix-1226042490227 SUCK IT UP ROO_GIRL.

Thanks chicken lipsforme, that link worked this time.Here it is


Quote:

A UN climate body has been forced to back away from damaging claims that the world could be flooded with up to 50 million "climate refugees" - by last year. The predictions date back to 2005 when the UN University in Bonn in Germany argued for a new category of refugee to cover people fleeing environmental catastrophes such as sea-level rises, desert expansion and flooding. As recently as last week, a website affiliated with the UN Environment Program, which lists climate change as one of its six priorities, carried a map outlining where the refugees would come from, under the heading "Fifty million climate refugees by 2010". Low-lying Pacific islands, such as the tiny nation of Tuvalu, have been considered potential sources of climate refugees as they are submerged by rising sea levels. However, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimated the number of all refugees worldwide at the end of 2009 to be 15.2 million, and the total number of people subject to forced displacement - including asylum-seekers and people displaced within their own countries - at 43.3 million. GRAPHIC: UN climate refugee map The map has since been removed

OH LOL, the map has since been removed so we have to take the OZs word that they didn't make it up.LOL  ;D ;D ;D
Oh the gullible ones, hey longy, the world is going to end tomorrow, I read it in the OZ, but their source is no longer available,LOL LOL  ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 9:55am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 9:44am: And you going into bat for Pilmer is stupid, your smarter than that. It is well documented his papers are wrong & misleading. I've pointed this out to you before why do you keep throwing a discredited name around? Quote: 16 December 09 Ian Plimer exposed as a fraud Comment on this StoryEmail this story From Tim Lambert's Deltoid blog: "Ian Plimer's performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed. Rather than admit to making any error at all, Plimer ducks, weaves, obfuscates, recites his favourite catch phrase, tries to change the subject and fabricates some more. When confronted with the fact that the USGS says (backed with scientific papers) that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes, Plimer claims that the USGS doesn't count underwater volcanoes. When told that the USGS specifically said that they do count undersea volcanoes, Plimer invented a story about how the nature of the rocks under the ocean proves that there must be unobserved emissions. Needless to say, this is not acceptable conduct for a scientist." Check out the rest of Lambert's post here: Plimer exposed as a fraud Here is our research database entry on Ian Plimer. http://www.desmogblog.com/ian-plimer-exposed-fraud your definition of 'fraud' is just as flaky. MISTAKES, even OBSTINATE mistakes do not make one a fraudster. it is these extreme deinfitions that muddy the water so much. this entire debate seeks to polarise everyone into two camps. mistakes become fraud. independent thought makes you a denier. scepticism is considered a sin. Isnt it about time we tolerated a diversity of opinion and embraced critical thinking and in fact CRITICISM itself? Pilmer is hardly a nobody with no reputation or qualifications.

So we accept that Pilmer made honest mistakes
Yet we villify the IPCC when they make 1

this entire debate seeks to polarise everyone into two camps. mistakes become fraud. independent thought makes you a denier. scepticism is considered a sin. Isnt it about time we tolerated a diversity of opinion and embraced critical thinking and in fact CRITICISM itself?

That was worth repeating with some colour :)

skippy. wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 9:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 9:33am: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/world-still-waiting-for-50-million-climate-refugees-by-2010/story-fn59niix-1226042490227 SUCK IT UP ROO_GIRL. Thanks chicken lipsforme, that link worked this time.Here it is Quote: A UN climate body has been forced to back away from damaging claims that the world could be flooded with up to 50 million "climate refugees" - by last year. The predictions date back to 2005 when the UN University in Bonn in Germany argued for a new category of refugee to cover people fleeing environmental catastrophes such as sea-level rises, desert expansion and flooding. As recently as last week, a website affiliated with the UN Environment Program, which lists climate change as one of its six priorities, carried a map outlining where the refugees would come from, under the heading "Fifty million climate refugees by 2010". Low-lying Pacific islands, such as the tiny nation of Tuvalu, have been considered potential sources of climate refugees as they are submerged by rising sea levels. However, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimated the number of all refugees worldwide at the end of 2009 to be 15.2 million, and the total number of people subject to forced displacement - including asylum-seekers and people displaced within their own countries - at 43.3 million. GRAPHIC: UN climate refugee map The map has since been removed OH LOL, the map has since been removed so we have to take the OZs word that they didn't make it up.LOL  ;D ;D ;D Oh the gullible ones, hey longy, the world is going to end tomorrow, I read it in the OZ, but their source is no longer available,LOL LOL  ;D ;D

you truly are an idiot. the UN said themselves that they removed the map - not that iot didnt exist. and why did they remove it? because it was an embarrassment; an example of a hysterical and unfulfilled prophecy.

astro_surf wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 9:45pm:

Soren wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 9:31pm: Quote: The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. Massive fail. [quote]You probably understand how ice ages come and go.  Please explain. And don't forget to correct the Wiki. If you'd read the quote you selectively cited above BEYOND the bit that appeared to confirm your existing biases, you would NEED me to explain the Milankovitch Cycle to you! ;D ;D ;D

That Wiki quote, following the "causes of ice ages are not fully understood" contains EIGHT factors:
1 atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour)
2 changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun
3 the motion of tectonic plates
4 wind and ocean currents;
5 variations in solar output;
6 the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system;
7 impact of relatively large meteorites,
8 volcanism


How they work together, how they influence each other, how they balance, reinforce and counter each other is NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD. Not by you, not by anybody.

For this very reason - how it all comes together is not well undesrtood - mongs like you focus on the one element that you have a tentative grasp of and you elevate it to the status of the one component that rules them all, so to speak.

There are some pretty big forces in that list of 8 but the right-on nerks are obsessed by the smallest of them all because a third to a half of that smallest of components can be pinned on humans, especially the ones living in  highly developed Western service economies.

Quote:

said the original figure of 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010 derived from questionable calculations by the Oxford University academic Norman Myers.

The map was  derived from ONE ACADEMIC, moron.Thats like saying EVERYTHING Pilmer writes is gospel, only a retard would believe that, oh thats right, you believe everything he writes.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 10:12am:

So we accept that Pilmer made honest mistakes Yet we villify the IPCC when they make 1

People are much less forgiving about mistakes if you want to impose change on everyone but your predictions never seem to materialise. Expect massive scrutiny and resistance and ridicule if you are proven wrong in any detail.
But if you are wrong about next week's lotto numbers, you're safe, nobody will give a sh!t.  

skippy. wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 10:32am:

Quote: said the original figure of 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010 derived from questionable calculations by the Oxford University academic Norman Myers. The map was  derived from ONE ACADEMIC, moron.Thats like saying EVERYTHING Pilmer writes is gospel, only a retard would believe that, oh thats right, you believe everything he writes.

it doesnt change the fact that it was an OFFICIAL UN PREDICTION. and your point is that it was ONE SCIENTIST underscores the fact that so much of the UN's hysteria is based on single source nonsense.

and you were WRONG - AGAIN. the prediction WAS real.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 10:26am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 9:56am: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 9:33am: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/world-still-waiting-for-50-million-climate-refugees-by-2010/story-fn59niix-1226042490227 SUCK IT UP ROO_GIRL. Thanks chicken lipsforme, that link worked this time.Here it is Quote: A UN climate body has been forced to back away from damaging claims that the world could be flooded with up to 50 million "climate refugees" - by last year. The predictions date back to 2005 when the UN University in Bonn in Germany argued for a new category of refugee to cover people fleeing environmental catastrophes such as sea-level rises, desert expansion and flooding. As recently as last week, a website affiliated with the UN Environment Program, which lists climate change as one of its six priorities, carried a map outlining where the refugees would come from, under the heading "Fifty million climate refugees by 2010". Low-lying Pacific islands, such as the tiny nation of Tuvalu, have been considered potential sources of climate refugees as they are submerged by rising sea levels. However, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimated the number of all refugees worldwide at the end of 2009 to be 15.2 million, and the total number of people subject to forced displacement - including asylum-seekers and people displaced within their own countries - at 43.3 million. GRAPHIC: UN climate refugee map The map has since been removed OH LOL, the map has since been removed so we have to take the OZs word that they didn't make it up.LOL  ;D ;D ;D Oh the gullible ones, hey longy, the world is going to end tomorrow, I read it in the OZ, but their source is no longer available,LOL LOL  ;D ;D you truly are an idiot. the UN said themselves that they removed the map - not that iot didnt exist. and why did they remove it? because it was an embarrassment; an example of a hysterical and unfulfilled prophecy.

Might help some
Image of map on cache
http://patterico.com/files/2011/04/UN-SC03.jpg
http://patterico.com/2011/04/15/un-caught-scrubbing-embarrassing-climate-refugee-prediction/

UNEP is the designated authority of the United Nations system in environmental issues at the global and regional level. Its mandate is to coordinate the development of environmental policy consensus by keeping the global environment under review and bringing emerging issues to the attention of governments and the international community for action. The mandate and objectives of UNEP emanate from United Nations General Assembly resolution 2997 (XXVII) of 15 December 1972 and subsequent amendments adopted at UNCED in 1992, the Nairobi Declaration on the Role and Mandate of UNEP, adopted at the Nineteenth Session of the UNEP Governing Council, and the Malmö Ministerial Declaration of 31 May, 2000

Now we wait for roo-boy to say google cant be trusted and made up the map.

skippy. wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 10:32am:

Quote: said the original figure of 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010 derived from questionable calculations by the Oxford University academic Norman Myers. The map was  derived from ONE ACADEMIC, moron.Thats like saying EVERYTHING Pilmer writes is gospel, only a retard would believe that, oh thats right, you believe everything he writes.

Yes, one academic and the information was released anyway by the UN authority to scare the gullable.
Perhaps the academic should get himself some new cows innards to make his predictions, or sacrifice a virgin on an alter instead.
His old ones quite obviously are off.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 1:19pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 10:32am: Quote: said the original figure of 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010 derived from questionable calculations by the Oxford University academic Norman Myers. The map was  derived from ONE ACADEMIC, moron.Thats like saying EVERYTHING Pilmer writes is gospel, only a retard would believe that, oh thats right, you believe everything he writes. Yes, one academic and the information was released anyway by the UN authority to scare the gullable. Perhaps the academic should get himself some new cows innards to make his predictions, or sacrifice a virgin on an alter instead. His old ones quite obviously are off.

Pretty scary stuff when you have a mob with "Its mandate is to coordinate the development of environmental policy consensus by keeping the global environment under review and bringing emerging issues to the attention of governments " and they are following the fearmongers with ease. IPCC have been no differenet.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 12:35pm:

Now we wait for roo-boy to say google cant be trusted and made up the map.

LOL I leave the made up stories to you, there's no fool like an old fool.

When its hot - its because of global warming.
When its cold - its because of global warming.
When it rains - its because of global warming.
When it doesn't rain - its because of global warming.

The unquestioning acolytes of the warmist cult have an answer for everything. Just repeat the same mantra over and over and eventually the easily led will believe it.

Quote:

Just repeat the same mantra over and over and eventually the easily led will believe it.

So true, just look at how the confusionalist believe the likes of Monkton ,Pilger, Akerman and Bolt, easily led morons.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 12:35pm:

Now we wait for roo-boy to say google cant be trusted and made up the map.

Did you expect anything else from the goose.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 2:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 12:35pm: Now we wait for roo-boy to say google cant be trusted and made up the map. Did you expect anything else from the goose.

LOL I'll take that as a compliment, coming from an extremist loonie  and all.

skippy. wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 2:29pm:

Quote: Just repeat the same mantra over and over and eventually the easily led will believe it.       So true, just look at how the confusionalist believe the likes of Monkton ,Pilger, Akerman and Bolt, easily led morons.

Easily led by an Environmental scientist from JCU like Professor Bob Carter eh.
What would he know.
He must be a 'confusionalist' as well.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 2:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 12:35pm: Now we wait for roo-boy to say google cant be trusted and made up the map. Did you expect anything else from the goose.

not really. with Green-Goober's demise Roo-Boy takes on the baton of the boards crazed moron. Not belieivng that the UN mae the climate refugee prediction even after the UN itself admitted it is a sure sign of a very low intellect.

Quote:

Not belieivng that the UN mae the climate refugee prediction even after the UN itself admitted it is a sure sign of a very low intellect.

The UN didn't make it, 1 scientist did, LOL ,no fool like an old fool.

skippy. wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 2:57pm:

Quote: Not belieivng that the UN mae the climate refugee prediction even after the UN itself admitted it is a sure sign of a very low intellect. The UN didn't make it, 1 scientist did, LOL ,no fool like an old fool.

I would refer you to the link AND PHOTO of the UN website above but you clearly lackk the character, integrity AND intelligence to do so.

So please... keep going on about how the UN DIDNT predict 50million climate refugees by 2010!  YOU DO YOURSELF MORE HARM than anyone else could possibly do!

And now a word from the IPCC and global warmist Professor Richard Muller who wants to reveal the tricks used by the global warmists into scaring the rest of the world.
What the global warmists do NOT want you to know about.

Professor Muller  (applause)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related

Yeah - like folk are going to read THAT. :P

Give it a rest -  -   we are actually talking about CLIMATE CHANGE.

'Global warming' is SO passe. ::) ::)

This is just so irrelevant - such a waste of time, and a wasteful use of fossil fuels. Use your computer for something more useFULL. U've both  (all)  said this so many times, in so many ways, you provide a good example of why humans are seemingly unable to utilise resources in a sensible renewable way.

If the level of 'debate' on this topic is truly reflected by this thread - ?? :-? ::) :-/ :'(

we're allfcuked !  Bunch if morons is all I can call the lot of you.!!!! >:( :(

No wonder Australia's population doesn't grow substantially - self sufficiently.
No-one here wants to bring kids into this already over-populated stuffed up world. :(

So refreshing to hear from the IPCC and Professor Richard Muller addressing climate change

Muller reveals all the facts and how the global warmists are misleading the public by "rearranging" the facts, which led to that hockey stick.

Too many fraudsters out there preaching about global warming, the sky is falling etc. Muller puts it all in perspective.


Oh, and Professor Muller is a global warmist.
But he is a scientist first and is disgusted by the scaremongerers of global warming


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related

creep wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 5:55am:

So refreshing to hear from the IPCC and Professor Richard Muller addressing climate change Muller reveals all the facts and how the global warmists are misleading the public by "rearranging" the facts, which led to that hockey stick. Too many fraudsters out there preaching about global warming, the sky is falling etc. Muller puts it all in perspective. Oh, and Professor Muller is a global warmist. But he is a scientist first and is disgusted by the scaremongerers of global warming http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=related

Professor Bob Carter, the environmental scientist from JCU also has a poor opinion of the scaremongering and fact fiddling associated with this whole sorry business.

.........

"Frost this morning, therefor no global warming".

It's about the dumbest anti climate change argument you can get, yet it is surprising how persistently it crops up in different forms.

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 10:40pm:

"Frost this morning, therefor no global warming". It's about the dumbest anti climate change argument you can get, yet it is surprising how persistently it crops up in different forms.

It's almost as dumb as the global warmist argument when we have a hot day in summer that's proof of global warming!

Always amazes me that when you use the same "logic" on a global warmist that they then dispute their own use of facts!

It's almost as dumb as the global warmist argument when we have a hot day in summer that's proof of global warming!

Proof positive of freediver's previous observation. :)

Making it up as you go el creepo???
Dear me - that is woeful,  .... you'll probably be crying the same story when EVERYone else had finally recognised whats happening all around them.  Thats the trouble with computers - they give you another world,  - other multiple, complex worlds,.... so for those who need (or want ) to,  can live there, and only pop in to the real now and then.
 
Is that UR PROB? To paraphrase ...Radiohead......you're a creep - ...you're a loser,...... you don't belong here! :'( :-/ :'(
no.. no ...not anywhere, ....

Sum it up? :-/

u got to be cruel to be kind :(

And I always try to be kind -  I do random acts of kindness.!! Usually for the elderly, or bewildered, but in your case Creep-  getting real would be an enormous help to you in your life. :)
Give it a go
You never know! ????????? :)

I'm just really really happy that the denialists have enough sense in them to recognise that frost requires it to be cold.  Woo!

Woo! to you too Oprah. :)

Woo! Woooo Woo!. ;D

astro_surf wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 8:25am:

.........

That's deep astro.