It is easy for simpletons and politicians to classify a complex issue into ‘yes and no’ or ‘true and false’ or some other variety of the black and white argument.  But life is never that easy and very few serious and complex issues are ever so easily and so conveniently classified.  Climate Change is certainly just such an issue. For starters, most people cannot even easily define the issue.
Just using the term ‘climate change’ is pointless since it is quite obvious that climate changes and always has.  Even adding ‘Anthropogenic ‘ (human caused) to the front doesn’t help much since it is a basic understanding of science that since we form part of the earth’s bio-system we inevitably affect it.  The truly telling word that makes all the change and causes all the debate is ‘catastrophic’. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC). 

CC is obvious. ACC is pretty certain although the degree of effect is very debatable.  But CACC is where you lost me.

CACC essentially believes we are all going to fry, starve, drown or die in mass numbers unless we all do the IPCC’s bidding and spend hundreds of trillions of dollars changing our lives and lowering our standard of living.  Conveniently, the bulk of that money apparently needs to go to poor third-world countries. It wouldn’t be the UN if it didn’t involve criticising the West and doling out huge amounts of aid to African dictators and other left-wing dictatorships!

But is that C really all that credible?

I am naturally a cynic.  It is my personality trait.  Rather than viewing it as a failing, it is indeed very helpful in business, allowing me to see through the marketing hype and over-optimistic predictions to see the truth.  I don’t fall for scams because I always ask myself ‘where are the facts’ and the pertinent questions. Being a cynic means you don’t trust easily.  Faith isn’t your first resort but rather your last and blind faith is simply asking too much, period.  So naturally, the word ‘catastrophic’ aroused my instant suspicion.

To be honest, I’ve heard it all before.  Blah, Blah Blah.

We had the post World War 2 fear that we would all die in a global nuclear war.  Then we had the pollution global scare of the 1970s where we all expected to die in mounds of rubbish, breathing toxic air and drinking deadly acidic water.  We had Y2K, that truly embarrassing example of global hysteria and now, we have CACC.  Originally, we just had Global Warming but apparently that wasn’t sexy enough and probably too easy to confront so it was renamed CACC.

I’m not a denialist - which is a truly offensive term - but rather a cynic, demanding evidence and proof.  I don’t blindly accept the CACC position and so I ask ‘prove it’.  And that is where we part company.

The default position is always that climate is not heading towards catastrophe and as support for that I refer you to tens of thousands of years of human history where we were not destroyed by climate change. This of course is not proof that we aren’t heading towards catastrophe but it remains the default position that CACC proponents have to debunk.  As a cynic, I don’t have to prove anything. Rather, it is the job of CACC proponents to prove their case. And to be honest, it has been an epic fail.

A 0.89 degree rise in over 100 years doesn’t really concern me and I’m not sure why it should.  It clearly hasn’t harmed us in any way and I’ve heard several arguments that it has actually been a good thing. And when I see that the global warming has stabilised and has for the last 17 years I again question the hysteria over warming.  After years of doom-and-gloom predictions that the poles would melt, they have resolutely failed to do so and even now are increasing in size again. The six metres of sea level rise is closer to 6mm.  The UN’s prediction of 50 million climate refugees by last decade has been off by... fifty million.

But still the hysteria rages unabated. And hasn’t it gotten personal? Anyone who has ever debated or argued at length knows that once the debate gets personal you know the other side has lost. Superior, evidence-supported argument doesn’t need personal attacks.  So now I am a ‘denialist’. Considered a criminal by some and a fool by many in the CACC crowd.

I’m not a fool.  I’m a cynic.  If you want me to be a believer then you need to prove your case and to date, the CACC crowd have not even gotten close.  The one-time ‘gold standard’ Hockey Stick Graph which once adorned the IPCC reports and backdrops at news conferences is now generously described as bad science, although fraud is a better word.  The Climategate scandals have shown people willing to game the system to maintain the momentum of CACC.  But even such reprehensible behaviour doesn’t comprehensively negate CACC, although it certainly severely damages its credibility.  The real nail in the coffin of CACC is climate itself.

The world’s climate is stubbornly refusing to follow the IPCC’s predictive models.  Temperature refuses to rise.  Ice caps refuse to melt.  Glaciers refuse to disappear.  Extreme weather remains at the same level as it has for centuries.  Sea level rises are in millimetres, not metres. And reservoirs and dams continue to fill, even in dry countries like Australia.

I don’t believe in CACC, not because of ideology or blind faith, but rather by observation and science. I see nothing more than minor changes to climate well inside the bounds that history records.  We are cooler than the Medieval Warm Period and warmer than the more recent Little Ice Age.  I know there are groups of scientists that passionately believe in CACC but until such time as they provide concrete proof, then their hypothesis sounds more like the now-debunked theory of ‘ether’ that had consensus support among scientists for so long.

Maybe if they got a single predictive model to accurately mirror climate they might have a point. But to date, they have gotten every single prediction wrong and by a large margin. I do not believe that the hypothesis has any scientific merit at all, based on the comprehensive failure of every single model and every single prediction.

That is why I don’t believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change. 

I love it when a known moron thinks he knows better than 99% of the scientific community. ::)

skippy. wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:38am:

I love it when a known moron thinks he knows better than 99% of the scientific community. ::)

because they've never been wrong before???   the consensus position in science has frequently been wrong.  and CACC isn't even the consensus opinion.

but good to see that you didn't read the article.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:40am:

skippy. wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:38am: I love it when a known moron thinks he knows better than 99% of the scientific community. ::) because they've never been wrong before???   the consensus position in science has frequently been wrong.  and CACC isn't even the consensus opinion. but good to see that you didn't read the article.

I read it, and I decided 99% of the scientific community are correct. I am sure your ancestors believed in a flat earth, let's face it you still believe in fairies in the sky, the true sign of a fool.

BTW. Liar, it's against forum rules to post up articles you stole off someone else and try to pass them off as your own, where's the link, loony tunes?

skippy. wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:38am:

I love it when a known moron thinks he knows better than 99% of the scientific community. ::)

I love it when they change the definition to "catastrophic".

Hey long, for a person who gambles a whole $5 on the outcome of the federal melbourne seat ... loses the bet and then reneges on paying that $5 to the charity of my choice, who cares what you believe in since you have no ethics. 

If you want to risk your god's creation over your denial of basic science ... then why start this thread here. It should be in some obscure location hidden away from the light of day.

You have no morals and want to destroy humanity just out of pigheadedness.

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 11:00am:

skippy. wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:38am: I love it when a known moron thinks he knows better than 99% of the scientific community. ::) I love it when they change the definition to "catastrophic".

We are living in a period of a mass extinction which looks like will include our species. Yeah you are right, catastrophic is an understatement ... deadly climate change is more fitting.

skippy. wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:46am:

BTW. Liar, it's against forum rules to post up articles you stole off someone else and try to pass them off as your own, where's the link, loony tunes?

I wrote it roo-girl.

____ wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 11:00am: skippy. wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:38am: I love it when a known moron thinks he knows better than 99% of the scientific community. ::) I love it when they change the definition to "catastrophic". We are living in a period of a mass extinction which looks like will include our species. Yeah you are right, catastrophic is an understatement ... deadly climate change is more fitting.

I think Longy might take issue with that, GW.

As do the IPCC, based on their most recent report.

Longy isn't out to destroy humanity through sheer pigheadedness alone. Mind you, if it keeps Labor out of power, Longy would be the first to push the button.

Now that's ethics, leftards.

skippy. wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:38am:

I love it when a known moron thinks he knows better than 99% of the scientific community. ::)

Oh man the debunked 97% is up to 99%!? Now it has to be true! :P


____ wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

We are living in a period of a mass extinction which looks like will include our species. Yeah you are right, catastrophic is an understatement ... deadly climate change is more fitting.

Do you have a list of predictions of what negative effects are going to happen and when?
Muso has kindly shown me towards a not so catastrophic list, that doesn't include runaway warming.

CC is obvious. ACC is pretty certain although the degree of effect is very debatable.  But CACC is where you lost me.

You seem to partially accept the problem but want to ignore the obvious results.

If you accept climate change the question is then how much impact does it have.

2 , 5, 3 degree increases are talked about action today or more precisely 5 to 10 years ago were to limit the chage at around 2 degrees.

I believe it is accepted that temp increase has a significant impact on arid land and a reduction of world crop viability.

i.e. we lose the ability go grow enough to feed the population. Some feel that this is a catastrophic problem but I suppose some feel that their class and position will enable them to get enough food and that a few hundred million dying will solve the rather mild annoyance.

skippy. wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:43am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:40am: skippy. wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:38am: I love it when a known moron thinks he knows better than 99% of the scientific community. ::) because they've never been wrong before???   the consensus position in science has frequently been wrong.  and CACC isn't even the consensus opinion. but good to see that you didn't read the article. I read it, and I decided 99% of the scientific community are correct. I am sure your ancestors believed in a flat earth, let's face it you still believe in fairies in the sky, the true sign of a fool.

Where did you read it.....???

And

What did you read.......?????


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1377835124/105#105

Are you sure this consensus even exists....????/

____ wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 11:00am: skippy. wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:38am: I love it when a known moron thinks he knows better than 99% of the scientific community. ::) I love it when they change the definition to "catastrophic". We are living in a period of a mass extinction which looks like will include our species. Yeah you are right, catastrophic is an understatement ... deadly climate change is more fitting.

Where is the evidence.....?????

Show me..............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The trouble with the 'climate change' issue which used to be 'anthropogenic global warming theory' is that it is totally over used for a political agenda instead of an agenda of realistically trying to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Climate change catastrophic or otherwise is going to happen.  It's natural.  Preventing it is like trying to stop the tides.

Reducing the theoretical effect that humans are contributing is another matter.  The scientific elites (Poindexters) seem to think that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is the main driver of warming and reducing CO2 emission is the only way to prevent / reduce the effect of ‘climate change’???

OK if reducing CO2 emissions is so paramount then the Poindexters should be embracing all methods of reducing CO2 emissions not just the warm fuzzy inefficient ones.  CSG / Nuclear power should be some that should be on top the list.

But nope.  This is not the case.  Leftists are using global warming as a convenient way to promote their political ideology.  (If you don’t believe me Google eco-socialism and read their manifestos)   Hence it’s only those methods of reducing CO2 emissions that don’t interfere with their socialist political goals.

The eco-socialists (such as the Australian Greens) are totally against methods of reducing CO2 emissions such as coal seam gas, nuclear power and shock horror ‘direct action’ (actually doing something first hand) not because they could be effective weapons to reduce CO2 concentrations but because these methods may make corporations rich and may make some individuals rich, which is totally against their political grain.

Sensible individuals are a wake up to this and can see that the eco-socialist agenda of the Greenies takes precedence over reducing the effect of climate change and therefore the global warming alarm bells are just a political front.

Nice post Swagman.
I want to add something about when people say that Big Oil is trying it hardest to stop climate change policies that effect them going through.

Turns out Oil and Gas companies benefit from c02 reductions as their biggest competition is the Coal industry!  http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/22/how-big-oil-benefits-from-global-warming-alarmism/2/



Quote:

And coal? Here’s where the global warming regulatory crowd at EPA are doing all they can to help the Big Oil & Gas guys, whether they asked for  it or not. Then again, the EPA probably isn’t the coal industry’s biggest problem anyway, and is only hastening its inevitable decline. A greater adversary resides in the free market form of that cheaper, cleaner and abundant natural gas. As Jone-Lin Wang, head of global power research for HIS CERA told the Wall Street Journal, no other threat to coal “even comes close.”

Quote:

EPA has actually been an ally of Big Oil & Gas against Big Coal for some time, originally with no better friend then Enron. Flash back to the 1990s, a period when Enron’s natural gas business was encountering difficult market competition with coal.

Quote:

Media-fueled alarm about acid rain provided a basis for legislation to create markets for buying and selling excess sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emission credits, and Project 88 became the Clean Air Act of 1990. Enron was a major SO2 cap-and-trade player. So Enron and others wondered, why not do the same thing with CO2? Since natural gas is a lower CO2 emitter than coal, this would certainly be a profitability game changer. But there was a problem. Unlike SO2, CO2 wasn’t considered to be a pollutant, so the EPA had no authority to regulate it. But national hype about a global warming crisis advanced by then-Senator Gore’s highly publicized 1988 congressional hearings on the subject soon appeared to provide a dream opportunity to change that. Enron’s CEO Kenneth Lay had reportedly already met with President Clinton and Vice President Gore on August 4, 1997 to prepare a U.S. strategy for an upcoming U.N.-sponsored, Kyoto Protocol-promoting, climate summit that December. Kyoto presented the first step toward creating a carbon market that Enron desperately wanted Congress to support.

____ wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 11:00am: skippy. wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:38am: I love it when a known moron thinks he knows better than 99% of the scientific community. ::) I love it when they change the definition to "catastrophic". We are living in a period of a mass extinction which looks like will include our species. Yeah you are right, catastrophic is an understatement ... deadly climate change is more fitting.

You need to loosen up your hemp undies dude.
How's the sky going, fallen in yet.

skippy. wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:38am:

I love it when a known moron thinks he knows better than 99% of the scientific community. ::)

1.  That figure is simply incorrect.

2. This is what one climate scientist has to say about consensus:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:15pm:

skippy. wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:38am: I love it when a known moron thinks he knows better than 99% of the scientific community. ::) 1.  That figure is simply incorrect. 2. This is what one climate scientist has to say about consensus: “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

Im always astounded by the consensus comments as if it proves anything,  It in fact proves nothing at all. One fact will defeat 1000 consensual opinions.

Swagman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

The trouble with the 'climate change' issue which used to be 'anthropogenic global warming theory' is that it is totally over used for a political agenda instead of an agenda of realistically trying to prevent catastrophic climate change.

That is the crux of the matter. It has been hijacked by the Green Socialist Left as a way of justifying the redistribution of wealth.

The problem is that providing money to developing countries that have no hope of actually "developing" in the guise of assisting with renewable energy schemes, is counter productive. It detracts from replacing fossil fuel based energy with clean energy in the countries that actually produce energy in sufficient amounts. Some of the African countries have a similar energy use to a small town in Australia.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:

Im always astounded by the consensus comments as if it proves anything,  It in fact proves nothing at all. One fact will defeat 1000 consensual opinions.

Opinion in itself is worthless. Facts backed by verifiable evidence is all that counts.

Bushfires in Australia at the end of winter, start of Spring?

not a trend yet, but keep an eye on it hey folks?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:36am:

The truly telling word that makes all the change and causes all the debate is ‘catastrophic’. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC).

Is that a term used by the IPCC? I did a search of www.ipcc.ch for the terms "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change" and "Catastrophic Climate Change". 

Neither of these terms are used. They do talk about the  increasing frequency of catastrophic weather events. Is that what you mean? 

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:40am:

skippy. wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:38am: I love it when a known moron thinks he knows better than 99% of the scientific community. ::) because they've never been wrong before???   the consensus position in science has frequently been wrong.  and CACC isn't even the consensus opinion. but good to see that you didn't read the article.

lol, semantics is it??

muso wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 3:48pm: Im always astounded by the consensus comments as if it proves anything,  It in fact proves nothing at all. One fact will defeat 1000 consensual opinions. Opinion in itself is worthless. Facts backed by verifiable evidence is all that counts.

longy is trying to own the word 'consensus'!!

He/she/it is a tryhard chess player!!

  ;) ;)

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 1:15pm: skippy. wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:38am: I love it when a known moron thinks he knows better than 99% of the scientific community. ::) 1.  That figure is simply incorrect. 2. This is what one climate scientist has to say about consensus: “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/ Im always astounded by the consensus comments as if it proves anything,  It in fact proves nothing at all. One fact will defeat 1000 consensual opinions.

see, trying to own words so they can't be used and thus stifle debate and affecting groupthink.

it can't work of course but they know that and are simply stalling for maximum re-tooling time as the new paradigm makes itself clear which it obviously hasn't yet or the anti-science would stop!

It's all about harmonisation of the pieces!!

..........................apparently   ::) ::) ::) ::)  ;D

Longweekend thinks that billions of tons of stinking coal
can be put into the atmosphere & nothing will happen.

People like him should not be risking our climate.
What if Longweekend is wrong?

I suppose Longy will be  dead & gone before his theory can be tested so he won't have to worry.

I'd like to think that we leave this planet in good shape for future generations.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:09am:

Longweekend thinks that billions of tons of stinking coal can be put into the atmosphere & nothing will happen. People like him should not be risking our climate. What if Longweekend is wrong? I suppose Longy will be  dead & gone before his theory can be tested so he won't have to worry. I'd like to think that we leave this planet in good shape for future generations.

longy and his/her/it's foreign investor interests don't care about the kids and that is the way it's always been!

People have kids for no reason: not all but some.. and some is all it takes!  ;) ;)

They don't even believe climate change aint happening: they are just stalling until the new business paradigm is made clear and they play the same null hypotheis game science itself plays! The rich methodically work out the truth just as science does-->> it's an art form!

  8-) 8-)

... further: business interests play ball and if regulation has to come into it well that is not their concern until it becomes their concern==>> they play the game as it stands! You actually can't expect them to do any other-- it is market forces at work!

It's all a natural process: our main concern is the lies our regulated markets are legally allowed to tell us and thus corrupt the voting process that makes representative democracy itself!!

Voila, here we are back at the start(!??!) of the tapyoka circle.....  :)

muso wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 3:48pm: Im always astounded by the consensus comments as if it proves anything,  It in fact proves nothing at all. One fact will defeat 1000 consensual opinions. Opinion in itself is worthless. Facts backed by verifiable evidence is all that counts.

my point precisely.  and since the observable/measurable facts are not in accordance with ACC predictions with you admit it is wrong?

muso wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 6:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:36am: The truly telling word that makes all the change and causes all the debate is ‘catastrophic’. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC).  Is that a term used by the IPCC? I did a search of www.ipcc.ch for the terms "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change" and "Catastrophic Climate Change".  Neither of these terms are used. They do talk about the  increasing frequency of catastrophic weather events. Is that what you mean?

Of course the IPCC don't use that term.  they use ACC but then invoke the notion of catastrophe.  What precisely do you see as the difference?

Longy wants our cities to be like Beijing:

http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news-700/Beijing-s-Ongoing-Smog-Crisis-Leads-to-Over-100-Factories-Being-Shut-down.jpg

https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/14/1358174514566/Severe-smog-and-air-pollu-011.jpg

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:17am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 1:09am: Longweekend thinks that billions of tons of stinking coal can be put into the atmosphere & nothing will happen. People like him should not be risking our climate. What if Longweekend is wrong? I suppose Longy will be  dead & gone before his theory can be tested so he won't have to worry. I'd like to think that we leave this planet in good shape for future generations. longy and his/her/it's foreign investor interests don't care about the kids and that is the way it's always been! People have kids for no reason: not all but some.. and some is all it takes!  ;) ;) They don't even believe climate change aint happening: they are just stalling until the new business paradigm is made clear and they play the same null hypotheis game science itself plays! The rich methodically work out the truth just as science does-->> it's an art form!   8-) 8-)

Longy is crazy.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 9:37am:

muso wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 6:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 3:48pm: Im always astounded by the consensus comments as if it proves anything,  It in fact proves nothing at all. One fact will defeat 1000 consensual opinions. Opinion in itself is worthless. Facts backed by verifiable evidence is all that counts. my point precisely.  and since the observable/measurable facts are not in accordance with ACC predictions with you admit it is wrong?

Provide an example, including expected error.  Obviously if you're talking about a specific scenario, you'd need to demonstrate that the past history matched that particular scenario.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 9:38am:

muso wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 6:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:36am: The truly telling word that makes all the change and causes all the debate is ‘catastrophic’. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC).  Is that a term used by the IPCC? I did a search of www.ipcc.ch for the terms "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change" and "Catastrophic Climate Change".  Neither of these terms are used. They do talk about the  increasing frequency of catastrophic weather events. Is that what you mean?  Of course the IPCC don't use that term.  they use ACC but then invoke the notion of catastrophe.  What precisely do you see as the difference?

Well if you're stating that you don't believe a premise, it makes sense that you define that premise accurately. Otherwise, you're using a strawman. You're being "alarmist". I think that's the word you use.

Illustration:

Premise - That car just passed that bicyle.

Strawman response - Can you prove that the car was doing 100km/hr?

Notice Longy has run away from his own thread?

;D

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 10:45am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 9:38am: muso wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 6:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:36am: The truly telling word that makes all the change and causes all the debate is ‘catastrophic’. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC).  Is that a term used by the IPCC? I did a search of www.ipcc.ch for the terms "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change" and "Catastrophic Climate Change".  Neither of these terms are used. They do talk about the  increasing frequency of catastrophic weather events. Is that what you mean?  Of course the IPCC don't use that term.  they use ACC but then invoke the notion of catastrophe.  What precisely do you see as the difference? Well if you're stating that you don't believe a premise, it makes sense that you define that premise accurately. Otherwise, you're using a strawman. You're being "alarmist". I think that's the word you use. Illustration: Premise - That car just passed that bicyle. Strawman response - Can you prove that the car was doing 100km/hr?

or can you prove that the bicycle wasn't going backwards :D

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:36am:

... CC is obvious. ACC is pretty certain although the degree of effect is very debatable.  But CACC is where you lost me. ...

OK, so you believe there's no risk of the worst-case scenario.

I hope you're right. We're running the experiment while living in the test tube.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

Longy wants our cities to be like Beijing: http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news-700/Beijing-s-Ongoing-Smog-Crisis-Leads-to-Over-100-Factories-Being-Shut-down.jpg https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/14/1358174514566/Severe-smog-and-air-pollu-011.jpg

that's not CLIMATE CHANGE you immense drongo.  that's POLLUTION, the like of which the West cleared up 40 years ago. Grow a brain.

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 10:43am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 9:37am: muso wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 6:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 3:48pm: Im always astounded by the consensus comments as if it proves anything,  It in fact proves nothing at all. One fact will defeat 1000 consensual opinions. Opinion in itself is worthless. Facts backed by verifiable evidence is all that counts. my point precisely.  and since the observable/measurable facts are not in accordance with ACC predictions with you admit it is wrong? Provide an example, including expected error.  Obviously if you're talking about a specific scenario, you'd need to demonstrate that the past history matched that particular scenario.

temperature predictions: way off
sea level predictions: way off
polar ice predictions: way off

is that a good enough start for you?

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:36am: ... CC is obvious. ACC is pretty certain although the degree of effect is very debatable.  But CACC is where you lost me. ... OK, so you believe there's no risk of the worst-case scenario. I hope you're right. We're running the experiment while living in the test tube.

no I don't.  worst case scenarios are rarely ever true anyhow and given this hypothesis cant even reach the best case scenario then why take it seriously?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:31pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 9:42am: Longy wants our cities to be like Beijing: http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news-700/Beijing-s-Ongoing-Smog-Crisis-Leads-to-Over-100-Factories-Being-Shut-down.jpg https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/14/1358174514566/Severe-smog-and-air-pollu-011.jpg that's not CLIMATE CHANGE you immense drongo.  that's POLLUTION, the like of which the West cleared up 40 years ago. Grow a brain.

LOL

A classic.

Mind you, with the amount of misinformation and outright lies that the alarmists put out there, it's no wonder some people get sucked into believing it's all the same thing. 

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 4:31pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 9:42am: Longy wants our cities to be like Beijing: http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news-700/Beijing-s-Ongoing-Smog-Crisis-Leads-to-Over-100-Factories-Being-Shut-down.jpg https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/14/1358174514566/Severe-smog-and-air-pollu-011.jpg that's not CLIMATE CHANGE you immense drongo.  that's POLLUTION, the like of which the West cleared up 40 years ago. Grow a brain. LOL A classic. Mind you, with the amount of misinformation and outright lies that the alarmists put out there, it's no wonder some people get sucked into believing it's all the same thing.

well booby would still look stupid in a group of fools.   China needs to clean up its act just as the West did decades ago.

You do realise that these aerosols are one of the main factors that are keeping temperature rise on the lower range of expectations?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:

[quote] Provide an example, including expected error.  Obviously if you're talking about a specific scenario, you'd need to demonstrate that the past history matched that particular scenario. temperature predictions: way off sea level predictions: way off polar ice predictions: way off is that a good enough start for you?

I didn't think you'd be able to do that. I'll tell you what, here are two of your alleged failed predictions with error bars. These predictions appear to be quite successful. I'd go so far as to say that your argument is blown out of the water (with 95% confidence.)

I'll leave you to show me the data for sea ice, but as far as I'm aware, the IPCC predictions were actually quite conservative compared with reality.

Prove me wrong - I'll settle for 95% from you. 


http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif

---

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

...  worst case scenarios are rarely ever true ...

Outcomes are usually somewhere between worst and best cases. The question is, where in the spectrum of possibilities do we want to end up? You seem to be saying that "rarely ever" means "never".


longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

... why take it seriously?

Why take any risk seriously?

On Arctic sea ice, all I could find was this:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=605#16241


Quote:

by 2050, sea-ice extent is reduced to about 80% of area it covered at the mid-20th century.

That seems to be on track. Explain to me why you think it isn't.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/alexknapp/files/2013/02/PIOMAS_graph.png

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

Longy wants our cities to be like Beijing:

http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news-700/Beijing-s-Ongoing-Smog-Crisis-Leads-to-Over-100-Factories-Being-Shut-down.jpg

https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/14/1358174514566/Severe-smog-and-air-pollu-011.jpg


The kind of world that Longy wants for us.

As usual the IPCC prediction about sea rises is once again of the mark, just like their temperature predictions.

Ajax wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

As usual the IPCC prediction about sea rises is once again of the mark, just like their temperature predictions.

You're not paying attention. Talk to the facts
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1380242167/45#45

____ wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

Hey long, for a person who gambles a whole $5 on the outcome of the federal melbourne seat ... loses the bet and then reneges on paying that $5 to the charity of my choice, who cares what you believe in since you have no ethics.  If you want to risk your god's creation over your denial of basic science ... then why start this thread here. It should be in some obscure location hidden away from the light of day. You have no morals and want to destroy humanity just out of pigheadedness.

No, that was me. Longy's sociopathy doesn't extend beyond being purposefully obstinate to piss people off. He knows AGW is real.

Winston Smith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:

No, that was me. Longy's sociopathy doesn't extend beyond being purposefully obstinate to piss people off. He knows AGW is real.

You could be right.


Quote:

Longy wants our cities to be like Beijing:

Anecdotal information indicates that particulate air pollution has increased in regions with increasing coal burning, but assessment of the climate forcing requires global measurement of detailed physical properties of the aerosols.

Unfortunately, the one satellite mission that was capable of making measurements with the required detail and accuracy was lost via a launch failure, and as yet there are no plans for a replacement mission with the needed capabilities.

http://www.space.com/11030-nasa-glory-climate-satellite-failure.html


So there is a big gap in our understanding there, although as China gradually cleans up its act, ironically we'll start to see far greater warming.

Do you see how the negative forcing of aerosols (in blue) cancels out some of  the positive forcing of CO2 (not forgetting variations in solar forcing, volcanic negative forcing etc)

---

Winston Smith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:

____ wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 11:04am: Hey long, for a person who gambles a whole $5 on the outcome of the federal melbourne seat ... loses the bet and then reneges on paying that $5 to the charity of my choice, who cares what you believe in since you have no ethics.  If you want to risk your god's creation over your denial of basic science ... then why start this thread here. It should be in some obscure location hidden away from the light of day. You have no morals and want to destroy humanity just out of pigheadedness. No, that was me. Longy's sociopathy doesn't extend beyond being purposefully obstinate to piss people off. He knows AGW is real.

We all know that all deniers know it is real: they are just stalling for maximum retooling time!

  :D :D

ALL HUMAN RELATIONS IS POLITICS
http://nerdreactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/bill_and_ted_bogus_journey_604.jpg
SAID ONE OF THOSE EXCELLENT OLD DOODS!!

Sea levels have been rising since around the 1800's when we started to climb out of the mini ice age by temperature going up.

Temperatures have been rising since the 1800's.

Its only natural that temperature co2 and ocean levels rise.

The question that everyone should be asking is how much of the warming is actually due to manmade CO2.

muso wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 4:23pm:

Winston Smith wrote on Sep 29th, 2013 at 2:48pm: No, that was me. Longy's sociopathy doesn't extend beyond being purposefully obstinate to piss people off. He knows AGW is real. You could be right. Quote: Longy wants our cities to be like Beijing: Anecdotal information indicates that particulate air pollution has increased in regions with increasing coal burning, but assessment of the climate forcing requires global measurement of detailed physical properties of the aerosols. Unfortunately, the one satellite mission that was capable of making measurements with the required detail and accuracy was lost via a launch failure, and as yet there are no plans for a replacement mission with the needed capabilities. http://www.space.com/11030-nasa-glory-climate-satellite-failure.html So there is a big gap in our understanding there, although as China gradually cleans up its act, ironically we'll start to see far greater warming. Do you see how the negative forcing of aerosols (in blue) cancels out some of  the positive forcing of CO2 (not forgetting variations in solar forcing, volcanic negative forcing etc)

True but I don't want to live in a smog haze.

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

Sea levels have been rising since around the 1800's when we started to climb out of the mini ice age by temperature going up. Temperatures have been rising since the 1800's. Its only natural that temperature co2 and ocean levels rise. The question that everyone should be asking is how much of the warming is actually due to manmade CO2.

Can you explain WHY your beloved clean, efficient and harmless Global Fossil Fuel industry requires 1.4 trillion dollars EVERY YEAR from the tax payer?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 9:58am:

Can you explain WHY your beloved clean, efficient and harmless Global Fossil Fuel industry requires 1.4 trillion dollars EVERY YEAR from the tax payer?

Hey I know we're getting ripped of with petrol prices and utilities, but how is the tax payer giving $1.4 trillion to the fossil fuel industry....??????

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 9:58am: Can you explain WHY your beloved clean, efficient and harmless Global Fossil Fuel industry requires 1.4 trillion dollars EVERY YEAR from the tax payer? Hey I know we're getting ripped of with petrol prices and utilities, but how is the tax payer giving $1.4 trillion to the fossil fuel industry....??????

lol - you don't know?

I am quoting the 1.4 trillion dollar subsidy figure that the fossil fuel sectors receive each year on a global basis.

You can quote the IMF if you like - their estimate is 1.9 trillion dollars per year.

And this figure does not include the massive military spending that is directly linked to Oil Wars and security etc.

In Australia, the COAL INDUSTRY alone receives about 9 Billion dollars per year from that tax payer.

Meanwhile renewable energy options have to scrounge around for a few million dollars to build pilot and demonstration scale plants or conduct R&D and feasibility studies.

Now Abbott has scrapped the Clean Energy funding corporation. A funding model used in many countries overseas, including California and GErmany.

We are sick nation for a very good reason Mr Ajax.

I wonder if you know what that reason is?

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

Sea levels have been rising since around the 1800's when we started to climb out of the mini ice age by temperature going up. Temperatures have been rising since the 1800's. Its only natural that temperature co2 and ocean levels rise. The question that everyone should be asking is how much of the warming is actually due to manmade CO2.

er wasn't it just on the News ??  yesterday..??

did you miss it..?

Emma wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 9:09pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 9:33am: Sea levels have been rising since around the 1800's when we started to climb out of the mini ice age by temperature going up. Temperatures have been rising since the 1800's. Its only natural that temperature co2 and ocean levels rise. The question that everyone should be asking is how much of the warming is actually due to manmade CO2. er wasn't it just on the News ??  yesterday..?? did you miss it..?

The keyword is "actually".

What alternative do you propose for the warming ?

0.89 degree increase in temperatures over the last 100 years. No wonder people consider global warming to be crap.

It only started to kick in around 1960 or so. Nobody is talking about the last 100 years.

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 10:56pm:

0.89 degree increase in temperatures over the last 100 years. No wonder people consider global warming to be crap.

You may as well say 0.89 deg C in 1000 years

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 11:35pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 10:56pm: 0.89 degree increase in temperatures over the last 100 years. No wonder people consider global warming to be crap. You may as well say 0.89 deg C in 1000 years

Given that it has been cooling for most of that time, it makes sense.

Chart from AR5. This is the global version. Some of the Northern hemisphere studies show a more pronounced Medieval warming.

---

This graph shows all the Northern Hemisphere studies, including some of the ones Ajax quoted.

Some specific regions show a pronounced Medieval warming.  It's interesting to see the non cherrypicked data.

---

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 10:56pm:

0.89 degree increase in temperatures over the last 100 years. No wonder people consider global warming to be crap.

- and yet you get people talking about the Medieval Warming when Vikings lived in Greenland and grapes were grown in Southern England because it was so warm. That was less than today's temperatures but it was regarded as significant. Well, they are making pretty good wines again in Southern England. They have been for a few years now.

http://www.wineanorak.com/blog/uploaded_images/P1010447-724051.JPG

0.89 degrees is not too bad. Wait until you see 2 degrees. At the rate at which CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere, that's not far away. 

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 6:57am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 11:35pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 10:56pm: 0.89 degree increase in temperatures over the last 100 years. No wonder people consider global warming to be crap. You may as well say 0.89 deg C in 1000 years Given that it has been cooling for most of that time, it makes sense. Chart from AR5. This is the global version. Some of the Northern hemisphere studies show a more pronounced Medieval warming.

That kick in the temperature towards the end looks very ominous Mr muso

Gee I wonder if Mr Ajax has any ideas about what could be driving that thermal perturbation?

It must be the er.... recovery from the little ice age...that's it.

The Earth just kept on Warming. It was magic I tell you. 

Of course the temperature records show an apparent cooling, but never let the facts get in the ways of a sacred ideology. The Boltites have a very strong faith.

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 1:23pm:

It must be the er.... recovery from the little ice age...that's it. The Earth just kept on Warming. It was magic I tell you.  Of course the temperature records show an apparent cooling, but never let the facts get in the ways of a sacred ideology. The Boltites have a very strong faith.

Faith is a wound healed by knowledge.

Grey wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 2:07pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 1:23pm: It must be the er.... recovery from the little ice age...that's it. The Earth just kept on Warming. It was magic I tell you.  Of course the temperature records show an apparent cooling, but never let the facts get in the ways of a sacred ideology. The Boltites have a very strong faith. Faith is a wound healed by knowledge.

I have a strong personal sense of faith in the pillars of science and mathematics.

In fact in today's world the majority of priests are scientists and we have been swamped with churches that are commonly referred to as laboratories.

My only concern is the religious faith exhibited by 95% of the worlds Nobel prize winners.

Arctic Sea Ice projections from the AR5 WG1 Technical summary. Note - Final Draft only:


Quote:

Figure TS.17: Northern Hemisphere sea-ice extent in September over the late 20th century and the whole 21st century for the scenarios RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 in the CMIP5 models, and corresponding maps of multi-model results in 2081–2100 of Northern Hemisphere September sea ice extent. In the time series, the number of CMIP5 models to calculate the multi-model mean is indicated (subset in brackets). Time series are given as 5 year running means. The projected mean sea ice extent of a subset of models that most closely reproduce the climatological mean state and 1979 ‒ 2012 trend of the Arctic sea ice is given (solid lines), with the min-max range of the subset indicated with shading. Black (grey shading) is the modelled historical evolution using historical reconstructed forcings. The CMIP5 multi-model mean is indicated with dashed lines.

---

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 4:18pm:

Arctic Sea Ice projections from the AR5 WG1 Technical summary. Note - Final Draft only: Quote: Figure TS.17: Northern Hemisphere sea-ice extent in September over the late 20th century and the whole 21st century for the scenarios RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 in the CMIP5 models, and corresponding maps of multi-model results in 2081–2100 of Northern Hemisphere September sea ice extent. In the time series, the number of CMIP5 models to calculate the multi-model mean is indicated (subset in brackets). Time series are given as 5 year running means. The projected mean sea ice extent of a subset of models that most closely reproduce the climatological mean state and 1979 ‒ 2012 trend of the Arctic sea ice is given (solid lines), with the min-max range of the subset indicated with shading. Black (grey shading) is the modelled historical evolution using historical reconstructed forcings. The CMIP5 multi-model mean is indicated with dashed lines.

Is there data available concerning the volume of Ice loss?

There is. It's in the Technical Summary. You can find it using search on your pdf reader. It's actually mass in Gt, but it's close enough to assume 1 tonne = 1 cubic metre.

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 5:03pm:

There is. It's in the Technical Summary. You can find it using search on your pdf reader. It's actually mass in Gt, but it's close enough to assume 1 tonne = 1 cubic metre.

The reason I ask, is because the area ice loss, whilst a good indicator, can sometimes not reflect how much actual ice mass is lost globally

thin fringe ice areas can vanish relatively quickly giving rise to high rates of ice loss on an area basis. Likewise ice can build up in areas without actually changing the total ice area.

I tend to look at changes in net volumes or mass rather than area although ice cover is important in eco systems all around the world and even with artic transport etc

I think this is what you're after. It's a cumulative plot as you can see.

---

This is what it looks like from 2003 to 2012. Not a bad visualisation.

---

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 5:26pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 5:03pm: There is. It's in the Technical Summary. You can find it using search on your pdf reader. It's actually mass in Gt, but it's close enough to assume 1 tonne = 1 cubic metre. The reason I ask, is because the area ice loss, whilst a good indicator, can sometimes not reflect how much actual ice mass is lost globally thin fringe ice areas can vanish relatively quickly giving rise to high rates of ice loss on an area basis. Likewise ice can build up in areas without actually changing the total ice area. I tend to look at changes in net volumes or mass rather than area although ice cover is important in eco systems all around the world and even with artic transport etc

Of course: ice extent is receding but the poles are getting thicker... so you are right to question the volume as area is completely next to worthless although it still indicates change however- which is of course interesting in it's own sake and infact the process being examined!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJchayYlr-c

S'all in the amount of reflection from the ice surface.. less reflection back out into outer space, more temperature ....all a coefficient of area and not volume..

Just holding up my end of the conversation here - I haven't a clue.... but it sounds good.    ::)

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 6:55pm:

Just holding up my end of the conversation here - I haven't a clue.... but it sounds good.    ::)

Post a nice little graph, and follow it up with something along the lines of "destroying the future of my kids, and my kids' kids", and you'll be fine.

Just make sure the graph is colourful though.

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 10:56pm:

0.89 degree increase in temperatures over the last 100 years. No wonder people consider global warming to be crap.

Temperature is an indicator of the heat content of a system! You really have no idea what .89 degrees can do over a given time period.... let alone if this continues  :o :o or indeed accelerates... or indeed is hidden through phase changign of the ice etc... you simply have no idea  :o :o :o :o  :-X

Once again we are doing the three-thousand and fifty two billion word dance because some righty free-market liar who just also happens to hate all children including the unborn is pretending he doesn't understand the importance of RATES-OF-CHANGE!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

# wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 3:17pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:36am: ... CC is obvious. ACC is pretty certain although the degree of effect is very debatable.  But CACC is where you lost me. ... OK, so you believe there's no risk of the worst-case scenario. I hope you're right. We're running the experiment while living in the test tube. worst case scenarios are rarely ever true anyhow

That's not true.
When all the yahoo mob turned up here they said "wait until longweekend turns up.. You won't believe what a doofus he is"
And that worse case scenario happened.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 6:58pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 6:55pm: Just holding up my end of the conversation here - I haven't a clue.... but it sounds good.    ::) Post a nice little graph, and follow it up with something along the lines of "destroying the future of my kids, and my kids' kids", and you'll be fine. Just make sure the graph is colourful though.

Mr Bolt doesn't bother with graphs at all - your Hero and Mentor

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 11:35pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 10:56pm: 0.89 degree increase in temperatures over the last 100 years. No wonder people consider global warming to be crap. You may as well say 0.89 deg C in 1000 years

I saw an 8 degree change in the weather the other week. Didn't see the oceans evaporate and make heavy thunderstorms come our way. Ice will still freeze at zero celsius, and a 0.89 rise over 100 years won't melt the ice any faster to bring about accelerated erosion and flooding.

Like was pointed out, the ocean levels have dropped recently because all the rain from 2010/2011 still hasn't made it's way out into the oceans, and is still soaked up inside the Australian continent.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 6:59pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 10:56pm: 0.89 degree increase in temperatures over the last 100 years. No wonder people consider global warming to be crap. Temperature is an indicator of the heat content of a system! You really have no idea what .89 degrees can do over a given time period.... let alone if this continues  :o :o or indeed accelerates... or indeed is hidden through phase changign of the ice etc... you simply have no idea  :o :o :o :o  :-X Once again we are doing the three-thousand and fifty two billion word dance because some righty free-market liar who just also happens to hate all children including the unborn is pretending he doesn't understand the importance of RATES-OF-CHANGE!

Was going to ignore this, but I couldn't stop laughing at your hysteria. Then I came across the whole "righty-who-kills-unborn-children" part, and wondered if it was also directed at me.

I'm sure when you set your airconditioner at 0.89 degrees lower than what's recommended, you would see some marginal increase in your next quarterly electricity bill. However, that 0.89 degree increase in global temperatures, will also be 0.89 degrees that's also absorbed into the earth, the oceans, and our solar panels -- motivated into perceived needed existence by your chicken little cronies. I'm sure the extra evaporation from the oceans would offset the evaporation on land, with increased shower activity, and the plants and animals would have adjusted by now.

Go hug a tree and be friends with the forest somewhere else.

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 10:22pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 6:59pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 10:56pm: 0.89 degree increase in temperatures over the last 100 years. No wonder people consider global warming to be crap. Temperature is an indicator of the heat content of a system! You really have no idea what .89 degrees can do over a given time period.... let alone if this continues  :o :o or indeed accelerates... or indeed is hidden through phase changign of the ice etc... you simply have no idea  :o :o :o :o  :-X Once again we are doing the three-thousand and fifty two billion word dance because some righty free-market liar who just also happens to hate all children including the unborn is pretending he doesn't understand the importance of RATES-OF-CHANGE! Was going to ignore this, but I couldn't stop laughing at your hysteria. Then I came across the whole "righty-who-kills-unborn-children" part, and wondered if it was also directed at me. I'm sure when you set your airconditioner at 0.89 degrees lower than what's recommended, you would see some marginal increase in your next quarterly electricity bill. However, that 0.89 degree increase in global temperatures, will also be 0.89 degrees that's also absorbed into the earth, the oceans, and our solar panels -- motivated into perceived needed existence by your chicken little cronies. I'm sure the extra evaporation from the oceans would offset the evaporation on land, with increased shower activity, and the plants and animals would have adjusted by now. Go hug a tree and be friends with the forest somewhere else.

follow the path of Beelzebub ye evil scoundrel

you should ashamed of your pathetic lack of empathy and ridiculously low IQ level

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 10:13pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 11:35pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 10:56pm: 0.89 degree increase in temperatures over the last 100 years. No wonder people consider global warming to be crap. You may as well say 0.89 deg C in 1000 years I saw an 8 degree change in the weather the other week. Didn't see the oceans evaporate and make heavy thunderstorms come our way. Ice will still freeze at zero celsius, and a 0.89 rise over 100 years won't melt the ice any faster to bring about accelerated erosion and flooding. Like was pointed out, the ocean levels have dropped recently because all the rain from 2010/2011 still hasn't made it's way out into the oceans, and is still soaked up inside the Australian continent.

You saw nothing

You know nothing

Keep swallowing the Andrew Bolt excrement and following the Moncton priest of deceit

And never forget your medication you putrid clown freak puppet

Are you talking to yourself in the mirror, you arse monkey?

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 11:22pm:

Are you talking to yourself in the mirror, you arse monkey?

what do you mean by that crack?

---

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 10:13pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 11:35pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 10:56pm: 0.89 degree increase in temperatures over the last 100 years. No wonder people consider global warming to be crap. You may as well say 0.89 deg C in 1000 years I saw an 8 degree change in the weather the other week. Didn't see the oceans evaporate and make heavy thunderstorms come our way. Ice will still freeze at zero celsius, and a 0.89 rise over 100 years won't melt the ice any faster to bring about accelerated erosion and flooding.

Weather and climate are totally different things. We have already seen major melting of glaciers worldwide and in Greenland, and loss of Arctic Sea Ice. That's not significantly offset by the Antarctic either.

Any farmer (in Central Qld anyway) will tell you that's it's not changes in average temperatures that will kill crops, it's sudden spikes. On one extreme, certain plants will not survive a single instance of frost. On the other extreme, one single hot day can totally decimate a crop. As temperatures rise, the risk of that happening increases.

As our entertaining technicolor friend said, it's the boiling frog syndrome. Stick a frog in hot water, and it will jump out. But slowly increase the temperature and it won't notice until it drifts off to oblivion.


Quote:

Like was pointed out, the ocean levels have dropped recently because all the rain from 2010/2011 still hasn't made it's way out into the oceans, and is still soaked up inside the Australian continent.

Well it has recovered to a large extent. It bounced back. Haven't you seen the graph? (below)

(Your Yeppen bridge must be about complete by now is it?)

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel5/sl_ns_global.png

Problem solved

Muso, don't waste your time and effort with these graphs and explanations. Don't get me wrong they'd be great if the people you were directing them to were genuinely interested in the truth of the matter but they're not. They don't care about the truth of the matter, they just pretend they do.  Why do you think the pathetic cherry picking arguments used by denier bloggers and special interest groups such as the Heartland institute work so well? Its not because they're putting logical convincing arguments. No, its sufficient for their purposes to simply frame arguments that have a semblance of truth to them no matter how thin. Because that's all their followers need. Just the appearance that they care about the truth so that they can mask they're real motivation, namely they don't want to do anything about it. . In 30 years time when its too late and the worse effects are just starting most of them will be dead and people will have graduated to the new conditions thinking that thats the way its always been. Why go without or pay one red cent to fix the problem when the consequences will be for others to bear? Also for many of them its about ideology (as if the war between capitalism and socialism will continue to be fought out in the heavens even after we have long become extinct). They're "freedom" to exploit the resources of the earth unobstructed and for self interest and to pass on the I'll effects to the rest of us as externalities. And why should we be surprised at this? After all isn't that that lies at the very heart of capitalism. Our individual right as humans to pursue our own self interest no matter what the consequences may be for others.  Of course most capitalists wouldn't take that so far as to imperil the earth (though of course there are those who would) but when the speculated danger is so far off and gradual, its easier to take an ideological position with respect to the problem rather than a pragmatic one.

So where does that leave us? If we continue in circles with these senseless arguments we will most surly lose. After all the denialists are playing for time. But it shouldn't be about them anymore. Its about us now and our commitment to our species and our planet. Do we just sit and talk, talk, talk until its too late or do we fight these bast@rd. 

Actually I have enjoyed countering their claims, most of which are empty. A lot of the consequences have come out in the arguments. That's something that you suggested a month or so ago, and some really interesting material has come up.  It helps with self learning too. Even though I've been in the field for many years, I'm always learning something new.

I've been reading the IPCC WG1 Report. The point is that even they don't ignore sceptical views. It must have taken many thousands of manhours to put that together.

Some of the views put forward have added to the science and made it more robust as a result.

Just talking about aerosol emissions with Chimp made me think of SO2 emissions.  It will be interesting to compare satellite studies of SO2 emissions against the values that are disclosed.

We also need to look at some of the common positives, such as the move to clean energy. I doubt if anybody would oppose that, rabid denialist or not.

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:20am:

Actually I have enjoyed countering their claims, most of which are empty. A lot of the consequences have come out in the arguments. That's something that you suggested a month or so ago, and some really interesting material has come up.  It helps with self learning too. Even though I've been in the field for many years, I'm always learning something new. I've been reading the IPCC WG1 Report. The point is that even they don't ignore sceptical views. It must have taken many thousands of manhours to put that together. Some of the views put forward have added to the science and made it more robust as a result. Just talking about aerosol emissions with Chimp made me think of SO2 emissions.  It will be interesting to compare satellite studies of SO2 emissions against the values that are disclosed. We also need to look at some of the common positives, such as the move to clean energy. I doubt if anybody would oppose that, rabid denialist or not.

Still doesn't address the issue I'm afraid. If we content ourselves with endless debate because the denialists are just pretending to care our cause is sunk and we have lost the battle for our species and our earth. History should be as scathing in its criticism of us as it will be of the denialists.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:32am:

... we have lost the battle for our species and our earth. History should be as scathing in its criticism of us as it will be of the denialists.

So, no humans and no Earth.

Who will these scathing historians be, exactly?

So what are you suggesting? Guerilla warfare?

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 10:13pm:

I saw an 8 degree change in the weather the other week. Didn't see the oceans evaporate and make heavy thunderstorms come our way. Ice will still freeze at zero celsius, and a 0.89 rise over 100 years won't melt the ice any faster to bring about accelerated erosion and flooding. Like was pointed out, the ocean levels have dropped recently because all the rain from 2010/2011 still hasn't made it's way out into the oceans, and is still soaked up inside the Australian continent.

The mean is to be right half the time and wrong half the time. To be completely wrong all the time takes a kind of perverse genius.  ;D

Grey wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 11:24am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 10:13pm: I saw an 8 degree change in the weather the other week. Didn't see the oceans evaporate and make heavy thunderstorms come our way. Ice will still freeze at zero celsius, and a 0.89 rise over 100 years won't melt the ice any faster to bring about accelerated erosion and flooding. Like was pointed out, the ocean levels have dropped recently because all the rain from 2010/2011 still hasn't made it's way out into the oceans, and is still soaked up inside the Australian continent. The mean is to be right half the time and wrong half the time. To be completely wrong all the time takes a kind of perverse genius.  ;D

world sacred is pretending not to understand that temperature is an indicator of the heat content of a system!!

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:38am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:32am: ... we have lost the battle for our species and our earth. History should be as scathing in its criticism of us as it will be of the denialists. So, no humans and no Earth. Who will these scathing historians be, exactly?

Climate change affected mutants maybe?


http://0.tqn.com/d/horror/1/0/d/M/0/-/Mutants07.jpg

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 4:24pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:38am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:32am: ... we have lost the battle for our species and our earth. History should be as scathing in its criticism of us as it will be of the denialists. So, no humans and no Earth. Who will these scathing historians be, exactly? Climate change affected mutants maybe? http://0.tqn.com/d/horror/1/0/d/M/0/-/Mutants07.jpg

c02 = Cannibalism and rampant zombies. I like it!
I'm sure there will be a "what if climate change" movie that includes zombies some day.

Well nobody is talking about physiological effects much, but with levels in urban centres already in excess of 500 ppm, we'll be getting close to some of the low level physiological effects such as renal calcification in urban and indoor environments by the end of the century, depending on the emissions between now and then.

Here are the four emission scenarios considered by IPCC AR5.

---

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 4:24pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:38am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:32am: ... we have lost the battle for our species and our earth. History should be as scathing in its criticism of us as it will be of the denialists. So, no humans and no Earth. Who will these scathing historians be, exactly? Climate change affected mutants maybe? http://0.tqn.com/d/horror/1/0/d/M/0/-/Mutants07.jpg

As good an answer as any, considering the OP couldn't come up with an answer himself.

His post clearly demonstrates exactly how irrational and absurd their "thinking" is.

There will be no Earth, and no human species, yet there will be "history", floating around in space somewhere, criticising everyone.  Fascinating.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 8:35pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 4:24pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:38am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:32am: ... we have lost the battle for our species and our earth. History should be as scathing in its criticism of us as it will be of the denialists. So, no humans and no Earth. Who will these scathing historians be, exactly? Climate change affected mutants maybe? http://0.tqn.com/d/horror/1/0/d/M/0/-/Mutants07.jpg As good an answer as any, considering the OP couldn't come up with an answer himself. His post clearly demonstrates exactly how irrational and absurd their "thinking" is. There will be no Earth, and no human species, yet there will be "history", floating around in space somewhere, criticising everyone.  Fascinating.

wow, all the big brother generation will get to the end of their wine-drinking life thinking how good they left the place for the kids..................................OOOOOOOOOOPS!  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :'(

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 8:39pm:

wow, all the big brother generation will get to the end of their wine-drinking life thinking how good they left the place for the kids..................................OOOOOOOOOOPS!  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :'(

Which big brother generation are you referring to?
Big brother TV watching millennials or the Boomers that accepted the Big Brother government?
Thanks for the clarification :) <3

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:08pm:

Well nobody is talking about physiological effects much,

You mean their teeny weeny anterior cingulate cortex? :-)

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/liberals-and-conservatives-they-really-are-different/

what ?
who...
me??

I believe in it  .. can't see why it is even a contoversy.

Grey wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 12:50am:

muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 7:08pm: Well nobody is talking about physiological effects much, You mean their teeny weeny anterior cingulate cortex? :-) http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/liberals-and-conservatives-they-really-are-different/

Careful there. The participants here don't necessarily fit political stereotypes.  ;D

Well currently sea levels are rising at about 2mm/years.

by 2100 sea levels will rise about 200mm (8") there is nothing alarming about this rate.........!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 9:57am:

Well currently sea levels are rising at about 2mm/years. by 2100 sea levels will rise about 200mm (8") there is nothing alarming about this rate.........!!!!!

is the rate rise linear?

over what time period did you arrive at the 2mm/year figure?

what are your assumptions?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 4th, 2013 at 9:57am: Well currently sea levels are rising at about 2mm/years. by 2100 sea levels will rise about 200mm (8") there is nothing alarming about this rate.........!!!!! is the rate rise linear? over what time period did you arrive at the 2mm/year figure? what are your assumptions?

I'm pretty sure that is the data he IPCC uses in it's report.
Not his own conclusion but theirs.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 3:44pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 4th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 4th, 2013 at 9:57am: Well currently sea levels are rising at about 2mm/years. by 2100 sea levels will rise about 200mm (8") there is nothing alarming about this rate.........!!!!! is the rate rise linear? over what time period did you arrive at the 2mm/year figure? what are your assumptions? I'm pretty sure that is the data he IPCC uses in it's report. Not his own conclusion but theirs.

is it a linear rate rise in sea level over time?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 3:55pm:

is it a linear rate rise in sea level over time?

Sorry I can't recall, perhaps that is the argument that the rate isn't increasing.
You'll have to check with Muso.  :-/

Ajax wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 9:57am:

Well currently sea levels are rising at about 2mm/years.

3.2 mm/year actually:

GMSL Rates
CU: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr
AVISO: 3.2 ± 0.6 mm/yr
CSIRO: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr
NOAA: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr (w/ GIA)


Quote:

by 2100 sea levels will rise about 200mm (8") there is nothing alarming about this rate.........!!!!!

It depends on the emission scenario. Check the graph. THis projection doesn't include things like increased polar methane offgassing, so it could be significantly  understated.

The range is 25cm to 1 metre for 2100 depending on emission scenario. From AR5 WG1:


Quote:

Ocean thermal expansion and glacier mass loss are very likely the dominant contributors to global mean sea level rise during the 20th century. It is very likely that warming of the ocean has contributed 0.8 [0.5 to 1.1] mm yr–1 of sea level change during 1971–2010, with the majority of the contribution coming from the upper 700 m. Observations, combined with improved methods of analysis, indicate that the global glacier contribution (excluding the peripheral glaciers around Greenland and Antarctica) to sea level was 0.25 to 1.00 mm yr–1 sea level equivalent during 1971–2010.

The balance is made up from Greenland and West Antarctica. No net accumulation in Antarctica since 1979.

To answer your question, it's not linear. Greenland's rate of  ice melt is expected to accelerate for one.

---

And here are the four emission scenarios referred to in the above graph:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/graph10.jpeg

Would it be safe to say the predictions when mediated would suggest a linear rate of rise?
Or does that single Red line prove that the rate of sea level rise would accelerate?

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 4:31pm:

Would it be safe to say the predictions when mediated would suggest a linear rate of rise? Or does that single Red line prove that the rate of sea level rise would accelerate?

RCP2.5 is the only scenario where there is a roughly linear rise. Correct.

muso wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 4:45pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 4th, 2013 at 4:31pm: Would it be safe to say the predictions when mediated would suggest a linear rate of rise? Or does that single Red line prove that the rate of sea level rise would accelerate? RCP2.5 is the only scenario where there is a roughly linear rise. Correct.

Oh so RCP 8.5 is the one with the exponential increase in c02 so that one if the biggest prediction of an accelerated rate? (When looking at the line not the min-max)

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 4:52pm:

muso wrote on Oct 4th, 2013 at 4:45pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 4th, 2013 at 4:31pm: Would it be safe to say the predictions when mediated would suggest a linear rate of rise? Or does that single Red line prove that the rate of sea level rise would accelerate? RCP2.5 is the only scenario where there is a roughly linear rise. Correct. Oh so RCP 8.5 is the one with the exponential increase in c02 so that one if the biggest prediction of an accelerated rate? (When looking at the line not the min-max)

Well it's not exponential, but it's the biggest rise. It corresponds to the scenario where the CO2 rises to about 25 PgC/yr and levels off around 2080. We're currently a bit less than half that rate (about 11PgC/ year. Multiply by 3.67 to give CO2. 1 Pg = 1 Gigatonne.)  It also gives an atmospheric concentration of 1000 ppm or thereabouts.

Not all the tipping points are known and most of the accepted tipping points are not fully understood with respect to what they will do to the climate, sea levels etc.

Clathratic methane, permafrosts, Greenland terrestrial ice etc are very scary factors in all of this.....

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 7:51pm:

Not all the tipping points are known and most of the accepted tipping points are not fully understood with respect to what they will do to the climate, sea levels etc. Clathratic methane, permafrosts, Greenland terrestrial ice etc are very scary factors in all of this.....

Very important point, I agree.

Ajax wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 9:57am:

Well currently sea levels are rising at about 2mm/years. by 2100 sea levels will rise about 200mm (8") there is nothing alarming about this rate.........!!!!!

Not unless the idea of boat people disturbs you.  ;D

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 4th, 2013 at 9:57am: Well currently sea levels are rising at about 2mm/years. by 2100 sea levels will rise about 200mm (8") there is nothing alarming about this rate.........!!!!! is the rate rise linear? over what time period did you arrive at the 2mm/year figure? what are your assumptions?

Why wouldn't it be, history would suggest so, so I place my faith in the thousands of years that have gone before us.

Instead of the computer circulation models of the IPCC that thus far have got everyone of their predictions wrong.

If you want some sort of window into the future look to our past, and leave the nonsense of the IPCC where it belongs in the trash can.

muso wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 4th, 2013 at 9:57am: Well currently sea levels are rising at about 2mm/years. 3.2 mm/year actually: GMSL Rates CU: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr AVISO: 3.2 ± 0.6 mm/yr CSIRO: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr NOAA: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr (w/ GIA)

Wow Wow back up a bit here sunshine, the satellites are for measuring bulk ocean surfaces and therefore measuring bulk ocean increases.

They can do this with an accuracy of +-25mm.

So where is the 3.2mm/year coming from........???????

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/sicp-pod020209.php

why??

no idea.. seems almost a moral quandary for some..
 
admit WE have a major hand in the decimation of our only planet..??  God NO///  we are the pinnacle of evolution///  WE could NOT do such damage..!! 

?? 
Get real.. :(
do you honestly STILL CLAIM that WE..  you know  HUMANS..  >>/??? 
are innocent..?? 

You haven't shown me any reason to give the title of the topic anything BUT ridicule. 
Tell me.. in  just a short sentence... 

WHY ??

are you really such  a ..?   No  No  sorry.. you are probably a Virgo.!   ;D

Emma wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 9:24pm:

why?? no idea.. seems almost a moral quandary for some..   admit WE have a major hand in the decimation of our only planet..??  God NO///  we are the pinnacle of evolution///  WE could NOT do such damage..!!  ??  Get real.. :( do you honestly STILL CLAIM that WE..  you know  HUMANS..  >>/???  are innocent..??  You haven't shown me any reason to give the title of the topic anything BUT ridicule.  Tell me.. in  just a short sentence...  WHY ?? are you really such  a ..?   No  No  sorry.. you are probably a Virgo.!   ;D

There's like a dozen really long threads that have quite a few arguments against AGW.
Also, tried Numerology over Astrology?

no  ..
just seems the tight-sphincture set are determined to reject any culpability... in the face of reasonable intelligentsia.

Denial of obvious,  in your face,  real-time  events.. can surely only reside with those who have some agenda.. which is other than reality.

Motive >?? 
Greed = Money.
Pride = Hubris.

AD NAUSEAM

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 9:46pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:24pm: why?? no idea.. seems almost a moral quandary for some..   admit WE have a major hand in the decimation of our only planet..??  God NO///  we are the pinnacle of evolution///  WE could NOT do such damage..!!  ??  Get real.. :( do you honestly STILL CLAIM that WE..  you know  HUMANS..  >>/???  are innocent..??  You haven't shown me any reason to give the title of the topic anything BUT ridicule.  Tell me.. in  just a short sentence...  WHY ?? are you really such  a ..?   No  No  sorry.. you are probably a Virgo.!   ;D There's like a dozen really long threads that have quite a few arguments against AGW. Also, tried Numerology over Astrology?

Nope.
My point.?? 

So WHAT  ?? Vul11 ?

Are you saying YOU are not an AGW hysteric..?
Doesn't the topic title suggest the opposite..??

WHY??  can you tell me in a short sentence.. WHY..?
  you think you, and, all of us humans, are innocent..??

Why??

Emma wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:00pm:

Nope. My point.??  So WHAT  ?? Vul11 ? Are you saying YOU are not an AGW hysteric..? Doesn't the topic title suggest the opposite..?? WHY??  can you tell me in a short sentence.. WHY..?   you think you, and, all of us humans, are innocent..?? Why??

So you didn't want a list you want a too long don't read? (TL:DR)

I would say the reason why people are skeptical over AGW and the approach our government has used (carbon tax), is that we are dealing with billions of lives here. So if someone is telling us to completely change our lives you want to be damn sure you are as close to 100% as possible and that you can prove you are right(and hold up to criticism), before we take the risk of potentially forcing millions into poverty , which is a proven killer.

Does that help clarify the reason?

No  it doesn't clarify anything at all.. are you suggesting the carbon tax is potentially forcing 'millions'  into poverty..??

OK that is too stupid,, sorry,, BUT  what ??

'Billions' ???  of people will have to change their life style..?  .. and JEEZ  that's just TOO HARD.
eh?

Survival is hard... existence is hard.. for too many..

living is where we are at...
  and what??
oh  I NEED my holiday in Bali..
OH  I NEED  my V8 .. my powerboat.. my dirt bike...
...   it's my right to do as I can and as I want ..the world is my oyster.. 
(remember THAT old saying?)

let the future take care of itself.. we do what we will..??

THAT IS THE CREDO which got us here.

BUT  HEY its OK

you don't believe in it...  it's  ALL GOOD. ::)

Emma wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:22am:

No  it doesn't clarify anything at all.. are you suggesting the carbon tax is potentially forcing 'millions'  into poverty..?? OK that is too stupid,, sorry,, BUT  what ?? 'Billions' ???  of people will have to change their life style..?  .. and JEEZ  that's just TOO HARD. eh? Survival is hard... existence is hard.. for too many.. living is where we are at...   and what?? oh  I NEED my holiday in Bali.. OH  I NEED  my V8 .. my powerboat.. my dirt bike... ...   it's my right to do as I can and as I want ..the world is my oyster..  (remember THAT old saying?) let the future take care of itself.. we do what we will..?? THAT IS THE CREDO which got us here. BUT  HEY its OK you don't believe in it...  it's  ALL GOOD. ::)

Haha calm down I think you might have had a terrible day?
I'm not saying I'm against change at all, no one that disputes AGW is against transitioning to sustainable energy or making sacrifice or change for the future generations.

There is though an issue when people talk about reducing energy use and charging taxes, they could potentially force people into poverty.  (Especially when having negative effects to a countries economy) This isn't necessarily my personal argument just my observation of the why.

Please don't make assumptions about my beliefs, purely because I am trying to sum up the reason why people are reluctant to accept AGW at face value without scrutiny.

fair enough :)

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:59am:

Emma wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 12:22am: No  it doesn't clarify anything at all.. are you suggesting the carbon tax is potentially forcing 'millions'  into poverty..?? OK that is too stupid,, sorry,, BUT  what ?? 'Billions' ???  of people will have to change their life style..?  .. and JEEZ  that's just TOO HARD. eh? Survival is hard... existence is hard.. for too many.. living is where we are at...   and what?? oh  I NEED my holiday in Bali.. OH  I NEED  my V8 .. my powerboat.. my dirt bike... ...   it's my right to do as I can and as I want ..the world is my oyster..  (remember THAT old saying?) let the future take care of itself.. we do what we will..?? THAT IS THE CREDO which got us here. BUT  HEY its OK you don't believe in it...  it's  ALL GOOD. ::) Haha calm down I think you might have had a terrible day? I'm not saying I'm against change at all, no one that disputes AGW is against transitioning to sustainable energy or making sacrifice or change for the future generations. There is though an issue when people talk about reducing energy use and charging taxes, they could potentially force people into poverty.  (Especially when having negative effects to a countries economy) This isn't necessarily my personal argument just my observation of the why. Please don't make assumptions about my beliefs, purely because I am trying to sum up the reason why people are reluctant to accept AGW at face value without scrutiny.

That is fair enough, except that it seems to me that a great many peeps are and will remain reluctant even in the face of significant scrutiny, peer review and ongoing demonstrations of the theory. In short, it is still just a theory, however, according to some in the scientific community, it is a theory that is hard to blithely dismiss, therefore still has some credibility as a theory.

The entire problem with this ongoing debate is exactly that. People on both sides arguing about a theory as though it is a proven fact one way or the other. Now that is, as you pointed out (sort of) simply a conflicting set of beliefs. I realise this won't be popular, but it has been a firmly held idea of mine for a long time now that strongly held beliefs have been a significant bane of human existence.

For my part I see it like this, we do pollute - that much is evident. Large amounts of pollution does cause significant environmental (and ultimately life threatening) damage - this much is indisputable. At some point we will genuinely reach a tipping point of no return - that too is actually to a fair degree indisputable because our environment is a closed system, therefore we can upset the fine balance of it to our detriment. The time frame of this of course may be up for debate, until it actually occurs of course.

The overall problem then it seems that, it would be absolutely wonderful if the sceptics were right on the money, however, it will be ultimately disastrous for future generations if they are not. To my mind that is the game being played with this ridiculous debate about what people believe as opposed to what actually is.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 10:01am:

... To my mind that is the game being played with this ridiculous debate about what people believe as opposed to what actually is.

It seems to me that we have:
- a group saying that they have enough information to be 95 to 100% certain of AGW and;
- another saying that they're 100% certain the other way because - well, they just are.

# wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 10:01am: ... To my mind that is the game being played with this ridiculous debate about what people believe as opposed to what actually is. It seems to me that we have: - a group saying that they have enough information to be 95 to 100% certain of AGW and; - another saying that they're 100% certain the other way because - well, they just are.

people?

what is the actual break up amongst scientists and scientific organisations worldwide?

Within the bodies that matter and expert scientists whose assessments should be valued and listened to there doesn't seem to be any controversy as to whether Human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are causing the earth to warm.

The internet and the mass media are different animals

Emma wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:22am:

No  it doesn't clarify anything at all.. are you suggesting the carbon tax is potentially forcing 'millions'  into poverty..?? OK that is too stupid,, sorry,, BUT  what ?? 'Billions' ???  of people will have to change their life style..?  .. and JEEZ  that's just TOO HARD. eh? Survival is hard... existence is hard.. for too many.. living is where we are at...   and what?? oh  I NEED my holiday in Bali.. OH  I NEED  my V8 .. my powerboat.. my dirt bike... ...   it's my right to do as I can and as I want ..the world is my oyster..  (remember THAT old saying?) let the future take care of itself.. we do what we will..?? THAT IS THE CREDO which got us here. BUT  HEY its OK you don't believe in it...  it's  ALL GOOD. ::)

Ok Emma

Show us by example....................!!!!

Turn of your electricity and gas, ditch your car, get rid of all your electronics.

And go back to the caveman days.....!!!

When you have done this you can hold your head up and talk otherwise its just hot wind..............!!!!

# wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 10:01am: ... To my mind that is the game being played with this ridiculous debate about what people believe as opposed to what actually is. It seems to me that we have: - a group saying that they have enough information to be 95 to 100% certain of AGW and; - another saying that they're 100% certain the other way because - well, they just are.

What actually is......?????

Like the hot spot or the deep ocean missing heat or that glaciers would all be gone by 2035, the hockey stick, climate gate...etc....etc.

Like I said lucky for you guys we have the sceptics...!!!

Otherwise you would take what the IPCC says as gospel..!!!

And pray to them like the ancient Greeks prayed to Mount Olympus and its gods.

HHHmmmnnn....I suppose Rajendra Pachauri would be your oracle......LMFAO......?????

Too bad he doesn't look like this.......

http://i43.tinypic.com/2d8q1q8.png

Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:32pm:

Emma wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 12:22am: No  it doesn't clarify anything at all.. are you suggesting the carbon tax is potentially forcing 'millions'  into poverty..?? OK that is too stupid,, sorry,, BUT  what ?? 'Billions' ???  of people will have to change their life style..?  .. and JEEZ  that's just TOO HARD. eh? Survival is hard... existence is hard.. for too many.. living is where we are at...   and what?? oh  I NEED my holiday in Bali.. OH  I NEED  my V8 .. my powerboat.. my dirt bike... ...   it's my right to do as I can and as I want ..the world is my oyster..  (remember THAT old saying?) let the future take care of itself.. we do what we will..?? THAT IS THE CREDO which got us here. BUT  HEY its OK you don't believe in it...  it's  ALL GOOD. ::) Ok Emma Show us by example....................!!!! Turn of your electricity and gas, ditch your car, get rid of all your electronics. And go back to the caveman days.....!!! When you have done this you can hold your head up and talk otherwise its just hot wind..............!!!!

Its how we GENERATE the electricity, how we POWER our vehicles, and how we live

You seem to be offering a choice between the current unsustainable, non renewable, self destructive, war mongering, environmentally destroying fossil fuel insanity and living as cavemen.

You're not being an Alarmist are you Batman?

---

Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:35pm:

# wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 10:57am: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 10:01am: ... To my mind that is the game being played with this ridiculous debate about what people believe as opposed to what actually is. It seems to me that we have: - a group saying that they have enough information to be 95 to 100% certain of AGW and; - another saying that they're 100% certain the other way because - well, they just are. What actually is......????? Like the hot spot or the deep ocean missing heat or that glaciers would all be gone by 2035, the hockey stick, climate gate...etc....etc. Like I said lucky for you guys we have the sceptics...!!! Otherwise you would take what the IPCC says as gospel..!!! And pray to them like the ancient Greeks prayed to Mount Olympus and its gods. HHHmmmnnn....I suppose Rajendra Pachauri would be your oracle......LMFAO......????? Too bad he doesn't look like this....... http://i43.tinypic.com/2d8q1q8.png

Not lucky for me ol' son because from where I sit, the sceptics are equal share holders in the entire problem....

Pollution ongoing and destructive.

For my part the only constant that the sceptics come up with is that it could not possibly have anything to do with human activity. Of itself that is pretty problematic, they either;
a) Do not even engage in talking about the real damage of pollution because it is far too important to be right about AGW or,

b) Do not even engage in talking about the real damage of pollution because they may need to acknowledge human responsibility for smacking up the ride....

Please by all means feel free to apply these same options to the other team.... It is equally applicable with minimal variation.

And, in short, that is what actually is....

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:35pm: # wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 10:57am: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 10:01am: ... To my mind that is the game being played with this ridiculous debate about what people believe as opposed to what actually is. It seems to me that we have: - a group saying that they have enough information to be 95 to 100% certain of AGW and; - another saying that they're 100% certain the other way because - well, they just are. What actually is......????? Like the hot spot or the deep ocean missing heat or that glaciers would all be gone by 2035, the hockey stick, climate gate...etc....etc. Like I said lucky for you guys we have the sceptics...!!! Otherwise you would take what the IPCC says as gospel..!!! And pray to them like the ancient Greeks prayed to Mount Olympus and its gods. HHHmmmnnn....I suppose Rajendra Pachauri would be your oracle......LMFAO......????? Too bad he doesn't look like this....... http://i43.tinypic.com/2d8q1q8.png Not lucky for me ol' son because from where I sit, the sceptics are equal share holders in the entire problem.... Pollution ongoing and destructive. For my part the only constant that the sceptics come up with is that it could not possibly have anything to do with human activity. Of itself that is pretty problematic, they either; a) Do not even engage in talking about the real damage of pollution because it is far too important to be right about AGW or, b) Do not even engage in talking about the real damage of pollution because they may need to acknowledge human responsibility for smacking up the ride.... Please by all means feel free to apply these same options to the other team.... It is equally applicable with minimal variation. And, in short, that is what actually is....

Almost all of them are not sceptics - they are DENIERS!

They generally commence their assessment of the evidence from a denialist standpoint, not a genuinely sceptical one.

Actually, the true definition of scepticism applies more to the scientists involved than these revisionist deniers who carry various axes to grind with them each time they enter these rooms to debate (if you wish to call it debating - more spin and miss information dissemination)

Rather funny to witness in public to be honest

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 1:28pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:35pm: # wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 10:57am: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 10:01am: ... To my mind that is the game being played with this ridiculous debate about what people believe as opposed to what actually is. It seems to me that we have: - a group saying that they have enough information to be 95 to 100% certain of AGW and; - another saying that they're 100% certain the other way because - well, they just are. What actually is......????? Like the hot spot or the deep ocean missing heat or that glaciers would all be gone by 2035, the hockey stick, climate gate...etc....etc. Like I said lucky for you guys we have the sceptics...!!! Otherwise you would take what the IPCC says as gospel..!!! And pray to them like the ancient Greeks prayed to Mount Olympus and its gods. HHHmmmnnn....I suppose Rajendra Pachauri would be your oracle......LMFAO......????? Too bad he doesn't look like this....... http://i43.tinypic.com/2d8q1q8.png Not lucky for me ol' son because from where I sit, the sceptics are equal share holders in the entire problem.... Pollution ongoing and destructive. For my part the only constant that the sceptics come up with is that it could not possibly have anything to do with human activity. Of itself that is pretty problematic, they either; a) Do not even engage in talking about the real damage of pollution because it is far too important to be right about AGW or, b) Do not even engage in talking about the real damage of pollution because they may need to acknowledge human responsibility for smacking up the ride.... Please by all means feel free to apply these same options to the other team.... It is equally applicable with minimal variation. And, in short, that is what actually is.... Almost all of them are not sceptics - they are DENIERS! They generally commence their assessment of the evidence from a denialist standpoint, not a genuinely sceptical one. Actually, the true definition of scepticism applies more to the scientists involved than these revisionist deniers who carry various axes to grind with them each time they enter these rooms to debate (if you wish to call it debating - more spin and miss information dissemination) Rather funny to witness in public to be honest

Um at the end of the day it is all just labels for pretty much the same shite different day kind of stuff.

For my money, the entire debate/argument/axe grind is the problem and I don't particularly care which team is which, they both need a label to differentiate them is all. That said, you are absolutely correct regarding what scepticism is according to its literal meaning. I will continue to use the term (incorrectly though) because it seems we have two labels both ultimately meant as derogatory that being, deniers and fear mongers.... Neither of which is particularly respectful, as such, I choose not to buy into them as much as possible.

In my experience one does not generally see the kind of rampant idiocy on display in these forums ("various axes to grind with them each time they enter these rooms to debate (if you wish to call it debating - more spin and miss information dissemination)") i.e. in public, because it seems that the internet is the place that many can ramp up their status to hero whereas in public they may become instantly accountable.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

Its how we GENERATE the electricity, how we POWER our vehicles, and how we live You seem to be offering a choice between the current unsustainable, non renewable, self destructive, war mongering, environmentally destroying fossil fuel insanity and living as cavemen. You're not being an Alarmist are you Batman?

HHHMMNNNNnnnnn......I wonder how you would crow, if the $2 to $10 trillion dollar carbon credit derivatives market was up and running for no net reduction in human CO2 emissions....???

Would you still hold the same stance on the AGW religion and its pseudo hypothesis.....????

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

Not lucky for me ol' son because from where I sit, the sceptics are equal share holders in the entire problem....

How so...???...if it wasn't for the sceptics most of the bullshit written by alarmists would be gospel...!!!!


Quote:

Pollution ongoing and destructive.

Once again pricing carbon will not stop our rivers and oceans and land from being polluted.

It will simply form a new market for wall street on human CO2 emissions.

Do you actually think pricing carbon will clean up our rivers, oceans and land from manmade pollution....????


Quote:

For my part the only constant that the sceptics come up with is that it could not possibly have anything to do with human activity. Of itself that is pretty problematic, they either;

Sceptics are disputing the  pseudo science of the IPCC and other alarmist groups that all the warming in the last 60 odd years is due to manmade CO2 emissions.

They don't dispute that the Earth is warming or that manmade CO2 emissions may have a minor role to play.


Quote:

a) Do not even engage in talking about the real damage of pollution because it is far too important to be right about AGW or, b) Do not even engage in talking about the real damage of pollution because they may need to acknowledge human responsibility for smacking up the ride....

Which pollution are you talking about, because carbon pricing will not stop corporations from dumping chemicals and rubbish into our rivers, oceans and land.

It simply puts a price on Human CO2 emissions, NOTHING more 'ol son......!!!!!!!


Quote:

Please by all means feel free to apply these same options to the other team.... It is equally applicable with minimal variation. And, in short, that is what actually is....

The other team worships gaia and her commandments, remember the orange people.....try telling them that they have been brainwashed.............????????

The argument about doing something about man made climate change just in case its real is a silly one because no matter how much effort we did put in it would actually make no difference at all, without oodles of free public money not a single co2 abatement scheme would exist and even as we speak all the governments of the worlds attempts at propping up useless co2 reduction schemes are currently in free fall as eventually all that free taxpayers money has to run out eventually and now it has.
Adding up was never a global warming hysterics strong point, unfortunately they firmly believe that there is absolutely no end to free taxpayers money to prop up idiotic green schemes, unfortunately this is just not the case.

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:

The argument about doing something about man made climate change just in case its real is a silly one because no matter how much effort we did put in it would actually make no difference at all, without oodles of free public money not a single co2 abatement scheme would exist and even as we speak all the governments of the worlds attempts at propping up useless co2 reduction schemes are currently in free fall as eventually all that free taxpayers money has to run out eventually and now it has. Adding up was never a global warming hysterics strong point, unfortunately they firmly believe that there is absolutely no end to free taxpayers money to prop up idiotic green schemes, unfortunately this is just not the case.

How true...!!!.....well said.

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:

The argument about doing something about man made climate change just in case its real is a silly one because no matter how much effort we did put in it would actually make no difference at all, without oodles of free public money not a single co2 abatement scheme would exist and even as we speak all the governments of the worlds attempts at propping up useless co2 reduction schemes are currently in free fall as eventually all that free taxpayers money has to run out eventually and now it has. Adding up was never a global warming hysterics strong point, unfortunately they firmly believe that there is absolutely no end to free taxpayers money to prop up idiotic green schemes, unfortunately this is just not the case.

We can always try and raise taxes to 80%, we all have to make sacrifices ;)
The 80% taxes worked so well in socialist Eastern Europe though hey  :)

I love this idea of "the few for the many", "for the greater good" and "make sacrifices", yet no one ever takes it to a logical or extreme conclusion. These people for instance aren't lining up outside hospitals, with organ Donner cards offing themselves to save 7+ peoples lives. No instead they are selfishly alive! How dare they prevent the majority with life saving organs when they are selfishly hogging them!

Then the arms start to go up and the umms and the ahhs and the "that's silly". No they only want to make "sacrifices" they are "comfortable with". At least those Buddhist monks really stuck to their principles with that self immolation! (abuse imminent ;) )

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 3:26pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 2:46pm: The argument about doing something about man made climate change just in case its real is a silly one because no matter how much effort we did put in it would actually make no difference at all, without oodles of free public money not a single co2 abatement scheme would exist and even as we speak all the governments of the worlds attempts at propping up useless co2 reduction schemes are currently in free fall as eventually all that free taxpayers money has to run out eventually and now it has. Adding up was never a global warming hysterics strong point, unfortunately they firmly believe that there is absolutely no end to free taxpayers money to prop up idiotic green schemes, unfortunately this is just not the case. We can always try and raise taxes to 80%, we all have to make sacrifices ;) The 80% taxes worked so well in socialist Eastern Europe though hey  :) I love this idea of "the few for the many", "for the greater good" and "make sacrifices", yet no one ever takes it to a logical or extreme conclusion. These people for instance aren't lining up outside hospitals, with organ Donner cards offing themselves to save 7+ peoples lives. No instead they are selfishly alive! How dare they prevent the majority with life saving organs when they are selfishly hogging them! Then the arms start to go up and the umms and the ahhs and the "that's silly". No they only want to make "sacrifices" they are "comfortable with". At least those Buddhist monks really stuck to their principles with that self immolation! (abuse imminent ;) )

I recall a proposal that simply applied a 1% tax on ALL financial transactions. This would collect about the same tax revenue as the current taxation system

That's 1% on every single financial transaction, transfer etc. The amount of tax collected from the stock market alone using a 1% tax is .

It will also mean that the GST would be 1%, and a flat rate on income of 1%.

I am sure most income earners would favour this

Ecxept for companies such as Fortesque mining run by Twiggy. Although Twiggy is in the top richest people in Australia, his corporate structure hasn't paid a single dollar in tax since its inception over 25 years ago.

Brilliant scam the rich have hey?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

Brilliant scam the rich have hey?

It is brilliant, people work to make them rich, then they use this to control the people making them rich, so they can make them even richer. :D crazy!

Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 1:28pm: Not lucky for me ol' son because from where I sit, the sceptics are equal share holders in the entire problem.... You're not a sceptic. You don't believe in AGW for political reasons. [quote author=Ajax link=1380242167/141#141 date=1381119133] Would you still hold the same stance on the AGW religion and its pseudo hypothesis.....????

Those are not the words of a sceptic.

muso wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 8:37pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 2:22pm: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 1:28pm: Not lucky for me ol' son because from where I sit, the sceptics are equal share holders in the entire problem.... You're not a sceptic. You don't believe in AGW for political reasons. [quote author=Ajax link=1380242167/141#141 date=1381119133] Would you still hold the same stance on the AGW religion and its pseudo hypothesis.....???? Those are not the words of a sceptic.

Yes Muso/..
have been reading the earlier posts and it seems to me ..  that  ..
DENIERS is the correct term to use to describe those

who continue to look .. 
but never see..
what is happening ..
who take comfort from dissent
for its own sake

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:

The argument about doing something about man made climate change just in case its real is a silly one because no matter how much effort we did put in it would actually make no difference at all, without oodles of free public money not a single co2 abatement scheme would exist and even as we speak all the governments of the worlds attempts at propping up useless co2 reduction schemes are currently in free fall as eventually all that free taxpayers money has to run out eventually and now it has. Adding up was never a global warming hysterics strong point, unfortunately they firmly believe that there is absolutely no end to free taxpayers money to prop up idiotic green schemes, unfortunately this is just not the case.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

innocent and ajax don't understand rates-of-change!


57.376 billion words won't change that!

::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

innocent and ajax don't understand rates-of-change!


57.376 billion words won't change that!

::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

innocent and ajax don't understand rates-of-change!


57.376 billion words won't change that!

;) ;)

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 6:31pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 6:23pm: Brilliant scam the rich have hey? It is brilliant, people work to make them rich, then they use this to control the people making them rich, so they can make them even richer. :D crazy!

The top 1% became 30% richer post Global financial Crisis (between 2008 to 2011)

Interesting during a time of global collapse and lack of confidence not seen since the great depression, the top 1% actually became wealthier, whilst almost everybody else became poor, less secure, more indebted, or lost their jobs, their homes etc.,

That's what happens when you socialise risk and privatise profit in a Corporatised capitalist system. The states incur all the debt whilst the top end of town and corporate banking royalty (the very people who trigger these crashes) get bailed out and receive welfare courtesy of the tax payer.

So when you hear AUSTERITY measures or economic terms such as quantitative easing, WATCH OUT - the rich are coming to empty your pockets and funnel your retirement benefits

One must wonder whether these boom bust cycles are manufactured

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 6:31pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 6:23pm: Brilliant scam the rich have hey? It is brilliant, people work to make them rich, then they use this to control the people making them rich, so they can make them even richer. :D crazy!

wow, what a revelation: the rich don't throw away their money! One wonders how they ever got rich in the first??

  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ lolmylittleacornoffagainandagainandagain!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 9:19pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 6:31pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 6:23pm: Brilliant scam the rich have hey? It is brilliant, people work to make them rich, then they use this to control the people making them rich, so they can make them even richer. :D crazy! wow, what a revelation: the rich don't throw away their money! One wonders how they ever got rich in the first??   :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ lolmylittleacornoffagainandagainandagain!!

Don't you know how they become rich?

Look at Royalty - do nothing, lie and cheat, stay on social welfare for centuries

Brilliant scam - its called fascism

And you as a slave to it, cant even see the chains around your limbs you floating weasel dropping

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 9:18pm:

The top 1% became 30% richer post Global financial Crisis (between 2008 to 2011) Interesting during a time of global collapse and lack of confidence not seen since the great depression, the top 1% actually became wealthier, whilst almost everybody else became poor, less secure, more indebted, or lost their jobs, their homes etc., That's what happens when you socialise risk and privatise profit in a Corporatised capitalist system. The states incur all the debt whilst the top end of town and corporate banking royalty (the very people who trigger these crashes) get bailed out and receive welfare courtesy of the tax payer. So when you hear AUSTERITY measures or economic terms such as quantitative easing, WATCH OUT - the rich are coming to empty your pockets and funnel your retirement benefits One must wonder whether these boom bust cycles are manufactured

The creation, exploitation and manipulation of bubbles is the creation of wealth today.  It would be great if everyone was free to do that, however they have such increased control over specifically due to what you state above! I love also the point about the people that cause these issues are bailed out not the poor f*cks losing their home in direct causation to their actions! :) Nice post btw.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 10:35pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 9:18pm: The top 1% became 30% richer post Global financial Crisis (between 2008 to 2011) Interesting during a time of global collapse and lack of confidence not seen since the great depression, the top 1% actually became wealthier, whilst almost everybody else became poor, less secure, more indebted, or lost their jobs, their homes etc., That's what happens when you socialise risk and privatise profit in a Corporatised capitalist system. The states incur all the debt whilst the top end of town and corporate banking royalty (the very people who trigger these crashes) get bailed out and receive welfare courtesy of the tax payer. So when you hear AUSTERITY measures or economic terms such as quantitative easing, WATCH OUT - the rich are coming to empty your pockets and funnel your retirement benefits One must wonder whether these boom bust cycles are manufactured The creation, exploitation and manipulation of bubbles is the creation of wealth today.  It would be great if everyone was free to do that, however they have such increased control over specifically due to what you state above! I love also the point about the people that cause these issues are bailed out not the poor f*cks losing their home in direct causation to their actions! :) Nice post btw.

....well it's often referred to as corporate socialism/welfare.

I recall stumbling on a quote, saying that there were 3 major forms of fascism to emerge from the 20th century. Bolshevism, nazism and corporatism.

Capitalism is often coupled with democracy. A totally fabricated association used for propaganda purposes. Just to give you an example. The USA is a corporately run pseudo capitalist system, whilst china is a state run pseudo capitalist system. Both are totalitarian in essence and anti democratic. Both rely on propaganda, fear and force to protect the Corpocracy and tyranny that enslaves its population.

Democracy is an Ancient Greek concept. It comes from the words demos (citizen) and kratia (state), that is the state is controlled by the citizenry. I can't see that in china or in the USA. Or in Australia or Greece for that matter.

A very good recent book on corporatism is by an American author

Gary Brumback, "the devils marriage: break up the Corpocracy or leave democracy in the lurch"

It highlights that the USA has had 5 major non democratic corpocratic periods since its inception in the 1770s.

He describes the current Corpocracy in the USA as the most pervasive and difficult to over throw.

Fascism always falls over, thankfully, but not before it creates a lot of damage and human carnage.

The ingenious part of these fascist corpocracies is that most of the enslaved citizenry actually believe they are free and live in a democracy. They can't see the chains. They can't see the bars on their windows.

But eventually enough of them wake up, enough of them take back what was taken from them.

That will happen in the USA, most likely in our life times

---

sound familiar..?

sadly..yes it does CL..

and any change will only occur through great upheavals to the way it is now.

hard to imagine..?
not really...
think about it... 
people all over our earth are being utilised, and then abandoned.. by the corporations. Not us  YET..!  ?? 
No ?  .. think again.

At this time I won't give them the capital C...  CORPORATIONS.
But it won't be long before the real power in this
money-grubbing world-wide economy..

(which used to be a planet that was home to us all... but is now just another asset to be used for profit) .. 

is finally recognised by the PEOPLE.

What'll happen .. if we ever do wake up ?  :( is not something I like to consider.

  The variables mean nothing is certain... nowhere is safe....

..and we think we are the pinnacle of evolution..??

No.. we may well  prove we are a branch of the tree of life..  soon to be truncated  diseased  and defunct. :(

Emma wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 12:12am:

sound familiar..? sadly..yes it does CL.. and any change will only occur through great upheavals to the way it is now. hard to imagine..? not really... think about it...  people all over our earth are being utilised, and then abandoned.. by the corporations. Not us  YET..!  ??  No ?  .. think again. At this time I won't give them the capital C...  CORPORATIONS. But it won't be long before the real power in this money-grubbing world-wide economy.. (which used to be a planet that was home to us all... but is now just another asset to be used for profit) ..  is finally recognised by the PEOPLE. What'll happen .. if we ever do wake up ?  :( is not something I like to consider.   The variables mean nothing is certain... nowhere is safe.... ..and we think we are the pinnacle of evolution..?? No.. we may well  prove we are a branch of the tree of life..  soon to be truncated  diseased  and defunct. :(

....sentiment many would have empathy with EP

Hey chimp & EP

How is it that you recognise one form of corporate snake oil but fail to recognise another, namely the AGW religion.

The very same people that drive corporatism all over the world are the same that drive the AGW religion....!!!!!!

Really puzzles me how you recognise one but not the other.

Here are some things to consider.................?????

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/7940-bank-of-america-to-donate-50-billion-for-climate-change-research-after-bailout/

http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Climate_Change_Fact_sheet_4_Degree_Warmer_World.pdf

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-05-30-hsbc_n.htm

http://www.citigroup.com/citi/press/2007/070508a.htm


Quote:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies…If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency…the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.. Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” - Henry Ford

Quote:

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." - Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference in Evians, France, 1991

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:

The argument about doing something about man made climate change just in case its real is a silly one because no matter how much effort we did put in it would actually make no difference at all, without oodles of free public money not a single co2 abatement scheme would exist and even as we speak all the governments of the worlds attempts at propping up useless co2 reduction schemes are currently in free fall as eventually all that free taxpayers money has to run out eventually and now it has. Adding up was never a global warming hysterics strong point, unfortunately they firmly believe that there is absolutely no end to free taxpayers money to prop up idiotic green schemes, unfortunately this is just not the case.

Gee IB you really are desperate to do nothing to come up with an argument like that.  Lets see now, our only reachable home in the universe that is capable of sustaining life is at risk of being trashed and perhaps even rendered unlivable and you you idiot argue that we shouldnt RISK fixing it because it will cost too much.    What about, we should risk fixing it or it will cost too much, perhaps even everything, which is never worth the price.   

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:16am:

Hey chimp & EP How is it that you recognise one form of corporate snake oil but fail to recognise another, namely the AGW religion. The very same people that drive corporatism all over the world are the same that drive the AGW religion....!!!!!!

Of course.

They have feet in both camps. Why thing for profit and power.

They also see the upcoming transition to renewables and sustainability. It's already happening. The big capital works projects will be in this area.

When you live in a fascist Corpocracy, that's how things are done.

So mr Ajax, we have a situation whereby the fossil fuel corporations are doing their usual lobbying, and public spin to prolong their industry. Wars work well too. Haven't you notice how rich Exxon became just from the illegal Iraq invasion?

Behind the scenes they are positioning themselves for the future growth economies.

Exxon for example is one of the worlds biggest investors into bio diesel and algae oil

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 2:46pm: The argument about doing something about man made climate change just in case its real is a silly one because no matter how much effort we did put in it would actually make no difference at all, without oodles of free public money not a single co2 abatement scheme would exist and even as we speak all the governments of the worlds attempts at propping up useless co2 reduction schemes are currently in free fall as eventually all that free taxpayers money has to run out eventually and now it has. Adding up was never a global warming hysterics strong point, unfortunately they firmly believe that there is absolutely no end to free taxpayers money to prop up idiotic green schemes, unfortunately this is just not the case. Gee IB you really are desperate to do nothing to come up with an argument like that.  Lets see now, our only reachable home in the universe that is capable of sustaining life is at risk of being trashed and perhaps even rendered unlivable and you you idiot argue that we shouldnt RISK fixing it because it will cost too much.    What about, we should risk fixing it or it will cost too much, perhaps even everything, which is never worth the price.

.


You just don't seem to get it, the money will run out before we've even made any practical contribution, its already running out now and we've achieved f#ck all!, the trouble with the left is they think there is no end to free money, thats why obama has almost bankrupted the US. 

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 9:33am: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 2:46pm: The argument about doing something about man made climate change just in case its real is a silly one because no matter how much effort we did put in it would actually make no difference at all, without oodles of free public money not a single co2 abatement scheme would exist and even as we speak all the governments of the worlds attempts at propping up useless co2 reduction schemes are currently in free fall as eventually all that free taxpayers money has to run out eventually and now it has. Adding up was never a global warming hysterics strong point, unfortunately they firmly believe that there is absolutely no end to free taxpayers money to prop up idiotic green schemes, unfortunately this is just not the case. Gee IB you really are desperate to do nothing to come up with an argument like that.  Lets see now, our only reachable home in the universe that is capable of sustaining life is at risk of being trashed and perhaps even rendered unlivable and you you idiot argue that we shouldnt RISK fixing it because it will cost too much.    What about, we should risk fixing it or it will cost too much, perhaps even everything, which is never worth the price.    . You just don't seem to get it, the money will run out before we've even made any practical contribution, its already running out now and we've achieved f#ck all!, the trouble with the left is they think there is no end to free money, thats why obama has almost bankrupted the US.

OMG its like trying to speak to an automaton trained to say the same thing over and over with no ability to think for itself.  Its not about money a#$&hole. Not everything is about money.  This thing is about the only place in the universe accessible to us that supports life.  If that's gone money wont matter. You understand now; you got it now; the penny dropped yet.   If the system cant deal with the problem that threatens the continuing viability of the only place in the universe that we can practically live in then we need to change the system.  Does Easter Island mean anything to you. Really you come across as absolutely brainwashed or something.  Think for yourself for f$#ksakes. 

Dumbf#ck what are you going to use to buy windmills and solar panels with ... clams? http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:30pm:

Dumbf#ck what are you going to use to buy windmills and solar panels with ... clams? http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif

e
Dumbf#ck you think the day the US watched planes fly into the twin towers the first thing they asked themselves was "can we afford what its going to cost to retaliate". Of course not (idiot) and they didn't ask themselves that because money didn't matter. Same with Pearl Harbour. You think the morning the US woke up to discover the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour the first thing they said was "Before we declare war on Japan lets do a cost benefit analysis to see if we can afford it" (and can you even begin to imagine how much that war cost in money terms).  Of course not. As far as the USA was concerned was that they were fighting for their survival (and certainly for their freedom) and that being so the issue of money just did not come into the calculation because communities can do these things when they're working for the common good and most certainly when they're fighting for their survival. How absurd it is that your brainwashed mind cant think that its possible for humans to act to save themselves or to save themselves from extreme hardship unless they can afford it in money terms.  You need to do some serious thinking idiot because your early homo sapiens brothers and sisters would have had no difficulty with that concept at all.   

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:07am:

Of course. They have feet in both camps. Why thing for profit and power.

I think you'll find that they are the ones pushing for a tax on the air we breath, more than anyone else.

They also own the oil companies, i'm sure you have seen big oil has also jumped on board and are asking for a carbon tax / ETS ASAP.


Quote:

They also see the upcoming transition to renewables and sustainability. It's already happening. The big capital works projects will be in this area.

I must say they're trying very hard to be first in....!!!!


Quote:

When you live in a fascist Corpocracy, that's how things are done.

Its only because people have been conditioned to think this is the norm....??????


Quote:

So mr Ajax, we have a situation whereby the fossil fuel corporations are doing their usual lobbying, and public spin to prolong their industry.

Don't agree with you here, they are actually on your side, now matter what you say they are right behind carbon taxes and ETS systems.

Show me a recent newspaper article where big oil is against these new taxes on CO2.


Quote:

Wars work well too. Haven't you notice how rich Exxon became just from the illegal Iraq invasion?

Yes I have, not to mention Kellogs Brown & Root, Rumsfeld's little baby.


Quote:

Behind the scenes they are positioning themselves for the future growth economies. Exxon for example is one of the worlds biggest investors into bio diesel and algae oil

Yeah they're raping the third world while they can...??

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:16am:

Hey chimp & EP How is it that you recognise one form of corporate snake oil but fail to recognise another, namely the AGW religion. The very same people that drive corporatism all over the world are the same that drive the AGW religion....!!!!!! Really puzzles me how you recognise one but not the other. Here are some things to consider.................????? http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/7940-bank-of-america-to-donate-50-billion-for-climate-change-research-after-bailout/ http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Climate_Change_Fact_sheet_4_Degree_Warmer_World.pdf http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-05-30-hsbc_n.htm http://www.citigroup.com/citi/press/2007/070508a.htm Quote: I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies…If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency…the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.. Thomas Jefferson [quote]“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” - Henry Ford

Quote:

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." - Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference in Evians, France, 1991

[/quote]

Ajax, you come straight from the global warming denial pages and cut and paste all their pseudo science here knowing that these are blogs set up by the international fossil fuel industry for their own self interests and then you question why we believe in real scientists doing real science who according to you have some sinister thing happening with big business to charge us all tax ... to what end? Who the Fux knows?  Your either the stupidest person on this forum or just a liar here on a mission (with a few of your other friends) to do the bidding of the international fossil fuel industry.  After all you do make a lot of use of their material in your cut and paste rants.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 5:31pm:

Ajax, you come straight from the global warming denial pages and cut and paste all their pseudo science here knowing that these are blogs set up by the international fossil fuel industry for their own self interests and then you question why we believe in real scientists doing real science who according to you have some sinister thing happening with big business to charge us all tax ... to what end? Who the Fux knows?  Your either the stupidest person on this forum or just a liar here on a mission (with a few of your other friends) to do the bidding of the international fossil fuel industry.  After all you do make a lot of use of their material in your cut and paste rants.

Hey clown

The fossil fuel industry is on your warmist arse side.

http://i39.tinypic.com/21l6gid.jpg

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 5:31pm: Ajax, you come straight from the global warming denial pages and cut and paste all their pseudo science here knowing that these are blogs set up by the international fossil fuel industry for their own self interests and then you question why we believe in real scientists doing real science who according to you have some sinister thing happening with big business to charge us all tax ... to what end? Who the Fux knows?  Your either the stupidest person on this forum or just a liar here on a mission (with a few of your other friends) to do the bidding of the international fossil fuel industry.  After all you do make a lot of use of their material in your cut and paste rants. Hey clown The fossil fuel industry is on your warmist arse side. http://i39.tinypic.com/21l6gid.jpg

Oh whats wrong Ajax, is this stupid unimaginative response the best you can do? What happened? Nothing on your bosses global warming deniers page you could cut and paste and had to do some thinking of your own. P!ss off you and your NIPCC propaganda brought to us and paid for by your bosses, the heartland institute, you immoral piece of S$!t.   

If Ajax has the courage to come back he might do a response to the following which I posted a while ago but he did not have the courage to reply to

" Sure the IPCC could be wrong but frankly anyone who would be convinced by your unqualified nonsensical rants over the word of climate scientists would have to be a complete fool.  It would be like accepting the view of a first aid assistant over a surgeon on whether to perform brain surgery. And for you to think that you can second guess the climate scientists shows a decided lack of basic judgment and total lack of any adult sense of responsibility.  In view of what's at stake even if I, the first aid assistant, had misgivings about the surgeons advice I would never try and convince the patient to ignore it because I'm a 1000 times more likely to be wrong then he is. Grow up. Have a rethink about this subject because your putting a lot of lives in jeopardy on a call your not qualified to make."

Again I suspect there was nothing on the "Ready Replies" Climate Change Deniers bloggers page that Ajax could cut and paste from so he just ignored the post.   But you got to ask yourself, how honest can a person be who has no real climate science expertise and yet insists that his judgment on the possibility of global warming is superior to the judgment of an overwhelming majority of the worlds best climate scientists.   The guy's either a monumental liar or someone with such a lack of judgment that you cant logically have any confidence in anything he has to say.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 6:07pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 5:47pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 5:31pm: Ajax, you come straight from the global warming denial pages and cut and paste all their pseudo science here knowing that these are blogs set up by the international fossil fuel industry for their own self interests and then you question why we believe in real scientists doing real science who according to you have some sinister thing happening with big business to charge us all tax ... to what end? Who the Fux knows?  Your either the stupidest person on this forum or just a liar here on a mission (with a few of your other friends) to do the bidding of the international fossil fuel industry.  After all you do make a lot of use of their material in your cut and paste rants. Hey clown The fossil fuel industry is on your warmist arse side. http://i39.tinypic.com/21l6gid.jpg Oh whats wrong Ajax, is this stupid unimaginative response the best you can do? What happened? Nothing on your bosses global warming deniers page you could cut and paste and had to do some thinking of your own. P!ss off you and your NIPCC propaganda brought to us and paid for by your bosses, the heartland institute, you immoral piece of S$!t.

supreme basal sarcasm

I'm with
ImSpartacus2...

you said it all very well my friend. :)

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 4:55pm:

Show me a recent newspaper article where big oil is against these new taxes on CO2.

Is Gina Reinhart big enough for you?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 6:07pm:

Oh whats wrong Ajax, is this stupid unimaginative response the best you can do? What happened? Nothing on your bosses global warming deniers page you could cut and paste and had to do some thinking of your own. P!ss off you and your NIPCC propaganda brought to us and paid for by your bosses, the heartland institute, you immoral piece of S$!t.

What can you bring to the table apart from ad hominems dude....???

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

If Ajax has the courage to come back he might do a response to the following which I posted a while ago but he did not have the courage to reply to " Sure the IPCC could be wrong but frankly anyone who would be convinced by your unqualified nonsensical rants over the word of climate scientists would have to be a complete fool.

And anyone who believes a carbon credit derivatives market will reduce manmade CO2 emissions has to be a bit light upstairs.......???

Once those moguls start licking their chops there aint no stopping them....!!!!....like to see you try...????


Quote:

It would be like accepting the view of a first aid assistant over a surgeon on whether to perform brain surgery.

If it wasn't for sceptics you would still believe that there was no medieval warm period and a mini ice age thanks to Michael Mann's hockey stick.

You would still believe that there is a hot spot in the tropopause and that all glaciers would melt by 2035.

You would have been shocked to find ice in the arctic in 2013 cause they said it would all be gone by then.

You would still believe the missing heat from the last 15 years was in the deep ocean layers, or was that the top ocean layers.

Would they have told you about the last 15 years and how instead of unequivocal warming trend of 0.2 degrees per decade its only been 0.05 degrees per decade.

Lucky you have sceptics because the sceptics scrutinise ever piece of evidence that the IPCC and other alarmist organisation put out to the public.

Unlike your warmist arse who excepts their pseudo science verbatim.

The sceptics don't.........you should be tanking them, that's what science is all about..........!!!!


Quote:

And for you to think that you can second guess the climate scientists shows a decided lack of basic judgment and total lack of any adult sense of responsibility.

I'm second guessing scientists am I, dude its 9:30pm bedtime dude is your mummy calling yet.....!!!!


Quote:

In view of what's at stake even if I, the first aid assistant, had misgivings about the surgeons advice I would never try and convince the patient to ignore it because I'm a 1000 times more likely to be wrong then he is.

Hey its not my data i'm presenting, its other doctors data that aren't on the anthropogenic gravy train and that don't agree with the AGW hypothesis.

If the alarmist scientists had any certainty that they where right why have they NEVER debated AGW.......????

They say this is the science, we are right you shut up sit down and listen to us.

SORRY don't work that way.....????

Why do they get upset if their work is scrutinised...???

FFS Newton handed his principia over to the university to scrutinize it and make sure that it was correct.

If they are indeed right why all the secrecy, why wont Michael Mann let the sceptics inspect the program used to obtain his hockey stick.

See there is so many holes in the AGW armour its strange how they're still around.


Quote:

Grow up. Have a rethink about this subject because your putting a lot of lives in jeopardy on a call your not qualified to make."

I'm putting lives at risk....???.....me....I'm not even a climate scientist FFS.

You lot talk so much sh!t its not even funny......!!!!


Quote:

Again I suspect there was nothing on the "Ready Replies" Climate Change Deniers bloggers page that Ajax could cut and paste from so he just ignored the post.

Bring it on you want to debate something bring it on champ.....!!!!!!!


Quote:

But you got to ask yourself, how honest can a person be who has no real climate science expertise and yet insists that his judgment on the possibility of global warming is superior to the judgment of an overwhelming majority of the worlds best climate scientists.

Just like your alarmist scientist who are too scared to debate their own science you are trying to twist the facts.

I'm only quoting what other scientists have said...!!!

That's what makes it credible, if it was my opinion I guess people would pay as much attention to me as to deathridesahorse.


Quote:

The guy's either a monumental liar or someone with such a lack of judgment that you cant logically have any confidence in anything he has to say.

Bring it on champ what would you like debate about anthropogenic global warming......??????

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:16pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 4:55pm: Show me a recent newspaper article where big oil is against these new taxes on CO2. Is Gina Reinhart big enough for you?

Don't really know, maybe she's a rebel...???

Maybe there's nothing in it for her..don't know...!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 6:26pm: If Ajax has the courage to come back he might do a response to the following which I posted a while ago but he did not have the courage to reply to " Sure the IPCC could be wrong but frankly anyone who would be convinced by your unqualified nonsensical rants over the word of climate scientists would have to be a complete fool.  And anyone who believes a carbon credit derivatives market will reduce manmade CO2 emissions has to be a bit light upstairs.......???

But why would that concern you?

You have no issues with rising atmospheric concentration of CO2.

In any case the solution should be measured regulation on a global scale.

The CFC link to ozone depletion drove rapid regulation of CFC use internationally
.

Worked rather well don't you think.

Or was the science politicized and made into a religion for CFCs too?

Your church is very busy these days with its flat earth society and alchemy agenda

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 6:26pm: If Ajax has the courage to come back he might do a response to the following which I posted a while ago but he did not have the courage to reply to " Sure the IPCC could be wrong but frankly anyone who would be convinced by your unqualified nonsensical rants over the word of climate scientists would have to be a complete fool. And anyone who believes a carbon credit derivatives market will reduce manmade CO2 emissions has to be a bit light upstairs.......??? Once those moguls start licking their chops there aint no stopping them....!!!!....like to see you try...????

And you begin by evading the point. Whats the matter? No ready reply on your Corporate sponsored bloggers page you can cut and paste for us?  It's your denials that global warming is caused by humans that is relevant here. That's what the scientists are talking about (the effectiveness or otherwise of the carbon emissions scheme is a different issue). Its the science that your saying is rubbish even though the qualified scientists who put together the IPCC reports overwhelmingly disagree with you.  You, who have absolutely no qualifications in the field and can only cut and paste from the denier sites set up specifically by the international fossil fuel industry so minions like you can disseminate their pseudo science to deceive the world and serve their corporate masters.  What do you get out of it Ajax? Tell us. A few silver coins thrown your way?


Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

If it wasn't for sceptics you would still believe that there was no medieval warm period and a mini ice age thanks to Michael Mann's hockey stick

I beg your pardon, your not a sceptic.  Proper skepticism requires just as much discipline, hard work and reasoned analysis as the theories and theorists they challenge. Otherwise why should we bother listening to them. Anyone can say no, that’s not true. No, what you are is a denier.  Someone whose not capable of the rigorous analysis involved and not interested in putting in the hard work and long hours but just simply wants to do all he can to muddy the waters and confuse as many as he can for the benefit of his unconscionable corporate masters.


Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

I'm second guessing scientists am I, dude its 9:30pm bedtime dude is your mummy calling yet.....!!!!

Evading again.  I mean, what on earth does this mean for F#$k sake. OK, so we're clear, read my lips, “Your second guessing scientists!!!!” Experts in a field that you have not got the faintest clue about.   


Quote:

In view of what's at stake even if I, the first aid assistant, had misgivings about the surgeons advice I would never try and convince the patient to ignore it because I'm a 1000 times more likely to be wrong then he is. Hey its not my data i'm presenting, its other doctors data that aren't on the anthropogenic gravy train and that don't agree with the AGW hypothesis.

Don’t you think it takes just as much knowledge, experience, hard work, and scientific know how to assess the veracity of an argument against anthropogenic climate change as it does to assess an argument for it.  When you cut and paste from you’re corporate masters’ site you still got to know that what your cutting and pasting makes scientific sense, and frankly you don’t.  You have no knowledge in the field and you cant even tell whether those who have prepared the arguments for you to disseminate have any relevant qualifications themselves. 


Quote:

SORRY don't work that way.....????

Listen to the little minion, doesn’t know sh!t about anything telling us how it does and doesn’t work. 


Quote:

Why do they get upset if their work is scrutinised...???

You serious!!! They just released their latest report to the world, knowing it would be scrutinized not only by fellow scientists but non-scientists like you, with no interest in the truth but simply to find fault to advance the interests of their corporate masters for the sake of what? Some small benefits thrown your way?  

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 6:26pm: Grow up. Have a rethink about this subject because your putting a lot of lives in jeopardy on a call your not qualified to make." I'm putting lives at risk....???.....me....I'm not even a climate scientist FFS. You lot talk so much sh!t its not even funny......!!!!

The more you try to muddy the waters and delay action on global warming the more lives you put at risk and please remember this; the internet never forgets.  A day will come when people will realize that there were those who deliberately tried to delay action on global warming for their own selfish purposes and I believe by that time people will see such behavior as a crime against humanity and I think the first thing they will want to know is how a nobody with no relevant scientific background could so emphatically insist that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists were wrong and he was right. 


Quote:

Again I suspect there was nothing on the "Ready Replies" Climate Change Deniers bloggers page that Ajax could cut and paste from so he just ignored the post.    Bring it on you want to debate something bring it on champ.....!!!!!!!

I wont debate the science with you because I’m not a scientist and your not a scientists and your opinion of the science is frankly worthless.   

[quote]But you got to ask yourself, how honest can a person be who has no real climate science expertise and yet insists that his judgment on the possibility of global warming is superior to the judgment of an overwhelming majority of the worlds best climate scientists.[quote]


Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

Just like your alarmist scientist who are too scared to debate their own science you are trying to twist the facts. I'm only quoting what other scientists have said...!!!

Your not qualified to properly assess whether the so called “scientists” you refer to are properly qualified and whether, what they have to say presents any real challenge to what the genuine climate scientists are saying about global warming. So p!ss off and go learn a bit of judgment because one day the world might very well want to seek you out and punish you for your lack of it.   

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

Bring it on champ what would you like debate about anthropogenic global warming......??????

Nothing.

He has absolutely no interest in debating you.

He actually thinks that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature" (don't laugh, he actually does believe that).

His plan is to shut down debate.

However, he's failed up until now, and he'll continue to fail as long as I'm around.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 8:44pm: Bring it on champ what would you like debate about anthropogenic global warming......?????? Nothing. He has absolutely no interest in debating you. He actually thinks that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature" (don't laugh, he actually does believe that). His plan is to shut down debate. However, he's failed up until now, and he'll continue to fail as long as I'm around.

Oh and should I debate you GP.. What do you know about climate science.  Are you a climate scientist? 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 11:44pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 8:44pm: Bring it on champ what would you like debate about anthropogenic global warming......?????? Nothing. He has absolutely no interest in debating you. He actually thinks that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature" (don't laugh, he actually does believe that). His plan is to shut down debate. However, he's failed up until now, and he'll continue to fail as long as I'm around. Oh and should I debate you GP..

Sure, if you want to be made to look like a (bigger) fool, go ahead.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:56pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 11:54pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 11:44pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 8:44pm: Bring it on champ what would you like debate about anthropogenic global warming......?????? Nothing. He has absolutely no interest in debating you. He actually thinks that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature" (don't laugh, he actually does believe that). His plan is to shut down debate. However, he's failed up until now, and he'll continue to fail as long as I'm around. Oh and should I debate you GP.. Sure, if you want to be made to look like a (bigger) fool, go ahead.

I see you started by doctoring my quote.  What I actually said was "Oh and should I debate you GP.. What do you know about climate science.  Are you a climate scientist?" So you want to answer the question .  What do you know about climate science?  Are you a climate scientist?"

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:02am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 11:56pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 11:54pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 11:44pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 8:44pm: Bring it on champ what would you like debate about anthropogenic global warming......?????? Nothing. He has absolutely no interest in debating you. He actually thinks that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature" (don't laugh, he actually does believe that). His plan is to shut down debate. However, he's failed up until now, and he'll continue to fail as long as I'm around. Oh and should I debate you GP.. Sure, if you want to be made to look like a (bigger) fool, go ahead. I see you started by doctoring my quote.  What I actually said was "Oh and should I debate you GP.. What do you know about climate science.  Are you a climate scientist?" So you want to answer the question .  What do you know about climate science?  Are you a climate scientist?"

I'll take that as a "no".

I expected no less from you.

So, is there anyone on this forum with a set of balls?

Anyone ... ?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:06am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 12:02am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 11:56pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 11:54pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 11:44pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 8:44pm: Bring it on champ what would you like debate about anthropogenic global warming......?????? Nothing. He has absolutely no interest in debating you. He actually thinks that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature" (don't laugh, he actually does believe that). His plan is to shut down debate. However, he's failed up until now, and he'll continue to fail as long as I'm around. Oh and should I debate you GP.. Sure, if you want to be made to look like a (bigger) fool, go ahead. I see you started by doctoring my quote.  What I actually said was "Oh and should I debate you GP.. What do you know about climate science.  Are you a climate scientist?" So you want to answer the question .  What do you know about climate science?  Are you a climate scientist?" I'll take that as a "no". I expected no less from you. So, is there anyone on this forum with a set of balls? Anyone ... ?

Well I assume your saying you got a set of balls., So prove it and answer the questions.  What do you know about climate science?  Are you a climate scientist?" Or you just playing the cheap tricks your used to playing and we've all seen you play before.