From the smallest club, through company boards to the governments of our states and nation, the significance of majority is recognised. Perversely, those in denial about global warming assert that a majority of scientists is insignificant.

Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists?

You should be asking how was this consensus formed...???


Quote:

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes By Larry Bell So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with. Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.) The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”   So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation? http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

From the smallest club, through company boards to the governments of our states and nation, the significance of majority is recognised. Perversely, those in denial about global warming assert that a majority of scientists is insignificant. Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists?

More people believe that there is a god than don't so what god do you believe in?

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

# wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 10:18am: From the smallest club, through company boards to the governments of our states and nation, the significance of majority is recognised. Perversely, those in denial about global warming assert that a majority of scientists is insignificant. Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists? More people believe that there is a god than don't so what god do you believe in?

[olist]

Can you substantiate that assertion?

What does it have to do with scientists?
[/olist]

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

# wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 10:18am: From the smallest club, through company boards to the governments of our states and nation, the significance of majority is recognised. Perversely, those in denial about global warming assert that a majority of scientists is insignificant. Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists? More people believe that there is a god than don't so what god do you believe in?

True.

"Fifty one percent of the 18,829 people across 23 countries who took part in the survey said they were convinced there is an afterlife and a divine entity, while 18 percent said they don't believe in a god and 17 percent weren't sure."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/25/us-beliefs-poll-idUSTRE73O24K20110425

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

From the smallest club, through company boards to the governments of our states and nation, the significance of majority is recognised. Perversely, those in denial about global warming assert that a majority of scientists is insignificant. Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists?

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

More people believe that there is a god than don't so what god do you believe in?

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:14pm:

[olist] Can you substantiate that assertion? What does it have to do with scientists? [/olist]

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 11^th, 2013 at 1:47pm:

True. "Fifty one percent of the 18,829 people across 23 countries who took part in the survey said they were convinced there is an afterlife and a divine entity, while 18 percent said they don't believe in a god and 17 percent weren't sure." http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/25/us-beliefs-poll-idUSTRE73O24K20110425

How many people are there in the world? Is 18,829 a credible sample size? How many countries are there in the world? Is 23 a credible sample size? Is 51% of 18,829 a majority of the world?

What does any of this have to do with scientists?

# wrote on Oct 11^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

How many people are there in the world? Is 18,829 a credible sample size? How many countries are there in the world? Is 23 a credible sample size? Is 51% of 18,829 a majority of the world? What does any of this have to do with scientists?

That's a really good point.
This begs two questions:
1. Is 12 000 + papers, many of which 5/6/7 to a single author a credible sample size for a world wide scientific consensus?
2. Would a survey not be discarded if it skewed results and refused to heed the complaints of the authors it was surveying?

What I mean about question two is in the Cook et al survey, only 8% of the 12 000+ papers (12 000+ papers no authors, even authors would be a small sample size wouldn't you say?) were classified as "explicit endorsements". Of that 8% many authors came forward and complained about miss-classification, also how many have been miss-classified and haven't come forward? For them to manipulate such a small numbers, in spite of miss-classification charges, to stretch out such a small amount of papers and call it 97% of a survey where 12 000 papers were reviewed is ridiculous. Add on the bias of the people actually reviewing the papers. Add on the bias of discounting "no opinion" papers despite specifically saying they would be counted as no votes, whilst putting that 8% into a graph whilst NOT showing a graph of the total paper results is ludicrous IMO.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

# wrote on Oct 11th, 2013 at 3:59pm: How many people are there in the world? Is 18,829 a credible sample size? How many countries are there in the world? Is 23 a credible sample size? Is 51% of 18,829 a majority of the world? What does any of this have to do with scientists? That's a really good point. This begs two questions: 1. Is 12 000 + papers, many of which 5/6/7 to a single author a credible sample size for a world wide scientific consensus? 2. Would a survey not be discarded if it skewed results and refused to heed the complaints of the authors it was surveying? What I mean about question two is in the Cook et al survey, only 8% of the 12 000+ papers (12 000+ papers no authors, even authors would be a small sample size wouldn't you say?) were classified as "explicit endorsements". Of that 8% many authors came forward and complained about miss-classification, also how many have been miss-classified and haven't come forward? For them to manipulate such a small numbers, in spite of miss-classification charges, to stretch out such a small amount of papers and call it 97% of a survey where 12 000 papers were reviewed is ridiculous. Add on the bias of the people actually reviewing the papers. Add on the bias of discounting "no opinion" papers despite specifically saying they would be counted as no votes, whilst putting that 8% into a graph whilst NOT showing a graph of the total paper results is ludicrous IMO.

Most reasonable people would agree with you Vuk.

But I don't think # is very reasonable otherwise he would spot the fraud himself.

Just think if it was the other way around...??

Ajax wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 9:23pm: # wrote on Oct 11th, 2013 at 3:59pm: How many people are there in the world? Is 18,829 a credible sample size? How many countries are there in the world? Is 23 a credible sample size? Is 51% of 18,829 a majority of the world? What does any of this have to do with scientists? That's a really good point. This begs two questions: 1. Is 12 000 + papers, many of which 5/6/7 to a single author a credible sample size for a world wide scientific consensus? 2. Would a survey not be discarded if it skewed results and refused to heed the complaints of the authors it was surveying? What I mean about question two is in the Cook et al survey, only 8% of the 12 000+ papers (12 000+ papers no authors, even authors would be a small sample size wouldn't you say?) were classified as "explicit endorsements". Of that 8% many authors came forward and complained about miss-classification, also how many have been miss-classified and haven't come forward? For them to manipulate such a small numbers, in spite of miss-classification charges, to stretch out such a small amount of papers and call it 97% of a survey where 12 000 papers were reviewed is ridiculous. Add on the bias of the people actually reviewing the papers. Add on the bias of discounting "no opinion" papers despite specifically saying they would be counted as no votes, whilst putting that 8% into a graph whilst NOT showing a graph of the total paper results is ludicrous IMO. Most reasonable people would agree with you Vuk. But I don't think # is very reasonable otherwise he would spot the fraud himself. Just think if it was the other way around...??

Reasonable people would accept that none of us is qualified to judge. Any reasonable person would acknowledge that those who reviewed Cook 2013 and approved it for publication in Environmental Research Letters are qualified.

Vuk11 evidently believes, fervently, but he's no better qualified than you or I, Ajax.

Judging by the desperation to disprove the majority, I take it that the tacit answer to the question:
# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

... Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists?

is that a majority of scientists is as significant as any other majority.

Reinforcing the consensus is the fact that, as far as I know, no major scientific body disagrees.

# wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:01pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 9:39pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 9:23pm: # wrote on Oct 11th, 2013 at 3:59pm: How many people are there in the world? Is 18,829 a credible sample size? How many countries are there in the world? Is 23 a credible sample size? Is 51% of 18,829 a majority of the world? What does any of this have to do with scientists? That's a really good point. This begs two questions: 1. Is 12 000 + papers, many of which 5/6/7 to a single author a credible sample size for a world wide scientific consensus? 2. Would a survey not be discarded if it skewed results and refused to heed the complaints of the authors it was surveying? What I mean about question two is in the Cook et al survey, only 8% of the 12 000+ papers (12 000+ papers no authors, even authors would be a small sample size wouldn't you say?) were classified as "explicit endorsements". Of that 8% many authors came forward and complained about miss-classification, also how many have been miss-classified and haven't come forward? For them to manipulate such a small numbers, in spite of miss-classification charges, to stretch out such a small amount of papers and call it 97% of a survey where 12 000 papers were reviewed is ridiculous. Add on the bias of the people actually reviewing the papers. Add on the bias of discounting "no opinion" papers despite specifically saying they would be counted as no votes, whilst putting that 8% into a graph whilst NOT showing a graph of the total paper results is ludicrous IMO. Most reasonable people would agree with you Vuk. But I don't think # is very reasonable otherwise he would spot the fraud himself. Just think if it was the other way around...?? Reasonable people would accept that none of us is qualified to judge. Any reasonable person would acknowledge that those who reviewed Cook 2013 and approved it for publication in Environmental Research Letters are qualified. Vuk11 evidently believes, fervently, but he's no better qualified than you or I, Ajax. Judging by the desperation to disprove the majority, I take it that the tacit answer to the question: # wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 10:18am: ... Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists? is that a majority of scientists is as significant as any other majority. Reinforcing the consensus is the fact that, as far as I know, no major scientific body disagrees.

Any paper that has to come back and defend its findings after they have been refuted by peer review experts in the field must surely have conspicuous errors.

How can you fail to aknowledge this.............????????

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

From the smallest club, through company boards to the governments of our states and nation, the significance of majority is recognised. Perversely, those in denial about global warming assert that a majority of scientists is insignificant. Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists?

No, majority is vitally important for making decisions in clubs, company boards and governments. Because those institutions operate on the will of the voters. Deciding where to go for your holidays is also something where a majority is useful.

HOWEVER, majority is totally meaningless in science, because science is based on evidence and fact, not on the will of the voters.

Since science is 'majority based', does that mean that the Earth is flat, at the centre of the Universe, and the Sun orbits the Earth???

Ajax wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:13am:

... Any paper that has to come back and defend its findings after they have been refuted by peer review experts in the field must surely have conspicuous errors. How can you fail to aknowledge this.............????????

Anything can be attacked. That doesn't mean that the attack is valid.

You have not substantiated the expertise of those who supposedly refuted Cook 2013. You have not even been able to link to any peer-reviewed journal in which the so-called refutation was published.

If you can find the relevant publication, then we'll need to consider the relative standing of the relevant journals. Outside the denyosphere, the so-called refutation hasn't raise so much as a ripple. From what I've seen the paper in question was written solely for denialists. Nobody else takes it seriously. It's up to you the establish its credibility.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:32am:

... majority is totally meaningless in science, ...

What is majority? Is it a statistic? Do statistics have no place in science?

The fact of the consensus offends the denialist faithful. The fact that the consensus hardens by the day whips them into frenzies of further denial. Doesn't change the facts though.


gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:32am:

Since science is 'majority based', does that mean that the Earth is flat, at the centre of the Universe, and the Sun orbits the Earth???

I presume you're getting confused over Galileo and Copernicus.

Galileo was a scientist who had the temerity to elevate science over the dominant religious orthodoxy. He didn't discover anything new; if you look into it, you'll find that the Greeks knew that the earth is round, centuries before Christ. Copernicus, I'll leave to you.

That you don't know the difference between science and religion does your credibility no good. It probably explains your denialism though.

# wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 8:54am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 10:32am: ... majority is totally meaningless in science, ... What is majority? Is it a statistic? Do statistics have no place in science? The fact of the consensus offends the denialist faithful. The fact that the consensus hardens by the day whips them into frenzies of further denial. Doesn't change the facts though. gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 10:32am: Since science is 'majority based', does that mean that the Earth is flat, at the centre of the Universe, and the Sun orbits the Earth??? I presume you're getting confused over Galileo and Copernicus. Galileo was a scientist who had the temerity to elevate science over the dominant religious orthodoxy. He didn't discover anything new; if you look into it, you'll find that the Greeks knew that the earth is round, centuries before Christ. Copernicus, I'll leave to you. That you don't know the difference between science and religion does your credibility no good. It probably explains your denialism though.

That you can't spot sarcasm isn't that much of a surprise...

But being confused over 'majority' when that's the thread title that YOU chose is just ridiculous. And selectively quoting a response to your OP is being deliberately dishonest..

p.s Not 'denialism'...skepticism.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 9:22am:

# wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 8:54am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 10:32am: ... majority is totally meaningless in science, ... What is majority? Is it a statistic? Do statistics have no place in science? The fact of the consensus offends the denialist faithful. The fact that the consensus hardens by the day whips them into frenzies of further denial. Doesn't change the facts though. gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 10:32am: Since science is 'majority based', does that mean that the Earth is flat, at the centre of the Universe, and the Sun orbits the Earth??? I presume you're getting confused over Galileo and Copernicus. Galileo was a scientist who had the temerity to elevate science over the dominant religious orthodoxy. He didn't discover anything new; if you look into it, you'll find that the Greeks knew that the earth is round, centuries before Christ. Copernicus, I'll leave to you. That you don't know the difference between science and religion does your credibility no good. It probably explains your denialism though. That you can't spot sarcasm isn't that much of a surprise... But being confused over 'majority' when that's the thread title that YOU chose is just ridiculous. And selectively quoting a response to your OP is being deliberately dishonest.. p.s Not 'denialism'...skepticism.

scepticism is a Greek word, it means being able to think and question what is happening in the world around you and temper that understanding with experience and wisdom. It is a critical element in the scientific method.

that kind of rules you out doesn't it you smelly freaked up weasel stench clown maggot

VUK11 and Ajax Clowns

Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ?

Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 9:59am:

VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!.

The only model that takes account of all variables, interactions and negative and positive feedbacks is the one we're in...every thing else is speculation and most equates to garbage in, garbage out as in no models predicted the warming "pause"...so it can't happen...the model don't allow it. Here's a cooling prediction however from the IPCC for Britain (actually big chunks of the NH would be effected) for the gulf stream to slow by 20 to 44 percent. However to tie this to any anthropogenic warming is a bit rich as it has stopped and started many times in the past without our help.

namnugenot wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 2:29pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:59am: VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!. The only model that takes account of all variables, interactions and negative and positive feedbacks is the one we're in...every thing else is speculation and most equates to garbage in, garbage out as in no models predicted the warming "pause"...so it can't happen...the model don't allow it. Here's a cooling prediction however from the IPCC for Britain (actually big chunks of the NH would be effected) for the gulf stream to slow by 20 to 44 percent. However to tie this to any anthropogenic warming is a bit rich as it has stopped and started many times in the past without our help.

jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data

do you fly much?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 4:01pm:

namnugenot wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 2:29pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:59am: VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!. The only model that takes account of all variables, interactions and negative and positive feedbacks is the one we're in...every thing else is speculation and most equates to garbage in, garbage out as in no models predicted the warming "pause"...so it can't happen...the model don't allow it. Here's a cooling prediction however from the IPCC for Britain (actually big chunks of the NH would be effected) for the gulf stream to slow by 20 to 44 percent. However to tie this to any anthropogenic warming is a bit rich as it has stopped and started many times in the past without our help. jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much?

;D ;D ;D ;D

So what your saying is, if jet propulsion models were done by climate change pseudo scientist, every plane would never have gotten off the ground without crashing.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 9:59am:

VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!.

Hey banana breath you're the joke not us.....!!!!!

Now what about the missing heat is it in the top layer or the bottom layers of the oceans...???

Do you still believe the tropopause has a hot spot...............??????

Or that all glaciers will be gone by 2035 and no ice in the arctic by 2013.....????

Was there a medieval warm period and a mini ice age...............????

Thank the sceptics ol boy other wise you would be in fantasy land.

Ajax wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:59am: VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!. Hey banana breath you're the joke not us.....!!!!!

Oh whats wrong batman, you have to hide in numbers within the confines of your crack pot religious congregation?

cant you defend yourself on your own?

I wonder how many worshipers attend yoru crack pot religion?

Maybe you can get them to help you with your assignment?

Its due by the end of 2019

Don't leave it until the last moment you freak clown maggot

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 4:40pm:

Oh whats wrong batman, you have to hide in numbers within the confines of your crack pot religious congregation? cant you defend yourself on your own? I wonder how many worshipers attend yoru crack pot religion? Maybe you can get them to help you with your assignment? Its due by the end of 2019 Don't leave it until the last moment you freak clown maggot

hey banana breath when you have any points of substance about why the earth is warming call me.

I'll be right here waiting............ 8-) :P :-*

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 4:01pm:

namnugenot wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 2:29pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:59am: VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!. The only model that takes account of all variables, interactions and negative and positive feedbacks is the one we're in...every thing else is speculation and most equates to garbage in, garbage out as in no models predicted the warming "pause"...so it can't happen...the model don't allow it. Here's a cooling prediction however from the IPCC for Britain (actually big chunks of the NH would be effected) for the gulf stream to slow by 20 to 44 percent. However to tie this to any anthropogenic warming is a bit rich as it has stopped and started many times in the past without our help. jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much?

Funny I did't think the Wright brothers had a computer?
What's that got to do with modelling vast climatic systems anyway?

namnugenot wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 7:09pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 4:01pm: namnugenot wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 2:29pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:59am: VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!. The only model that takes account of all variables, interactions and negative and positive feedbacks is the one we're in...every thing else is speculation and most equates to garbage in, garbage out as in no models predicted the warming "pause"...so it can't happen...the model don't allow it. Here's a cooling prediction however from the IPCC for Britain (actually big chunks of the NH would be effected) for the gulf stream to slow by 20 to 44 percent. However to tie this to any anthropogenic warming is a bit rich as it has stopped and started many times in the past without our help. jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much? Funny I did't think the Wright brothers had a computer? What's that got to do with modelling vast climatic systems anyway?

Well the ancient Greeks managed to build the first computer in about 100 BC

The antikythera mechanism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUnzZ7vfxSQ

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 4:01pm:

jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much?

Modelling the climate and landing a plane are world's apart.

chimpy your really getting desperate aren't you.

BTW bush fires have nothing to do with AGW, this has been happening in Australia for eons.

Ajax wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 7:33am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 4:01pm: jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much? Modelling the climate and landing a plane are world's apart. .

you are starting to panic you putrid weasel freak clown

Where is the model that predicts cooling or static global temperatures as CO2 levels rise?

What is the theoretical basis for this mathematical model?

You may have until the end of 2019, to complete your assignment, but you should really make a start you foul odorous turd maggot

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 12:30pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 7:33am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 4:01pm: jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much? Modelling the climate and landing a plane are world's apart. . you are starting to panic you putrid weasel freak clown Where is the model that predicts cooling or static global temperatures as CO2 levels rise? What is the theoretical basis for this mathematical model? You may have until the end of 2019, to complete your assignment, but you should really make a start you foul odorous turd maggot

Actually let's forget models that don't work or are insufficient and take a look at the Antarctic Ice Core data that shows actual temperature falling and CO2 increasing or where Co2 is falling and temperature is increasing Or you can go further back to where CO2 was 7000ppm...must have been hot then...a gizillion degrees I'd reckon...  ;D

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 12:30pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 7:33am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 4:01pm: jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much? Modelling the climate and landing a plane are world's apart. . you are starting to panic you putrid weasel freak clown

Actually, it's the AGW alarmists who are panicking.

Sceptics remain cool, calm and collected.

namnugenot wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 7:09pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 4:01pm: namnugenot wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 2:29pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:59am: VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!. The only model that takes account of all variables, interactions and negative and positive feedbacks is the one we're in...every thing else is speculation and most equates to garbage in, garbage out as in no models predicted the warming "pause"...so it can't happen...the model don't allow it. Here's a cooling prediction however from the IPCC for Britain (actually big chunks of the NH would be effected) for the gulf stream to slow by 20 to 44 percent. However to tie this to any anthropogenic warming is a bit rich as it has stopped and started many times in the past without our help. jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much? Funny I did't think the Wright brothers had a computer? What's that got to do with modelling vast climatic systems anyway?

What has aerospace engineering to do with Climate Change?  Nothing whatsoever. Maybe somebody should tell Burt Rutan that.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 2:04pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:30pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 7:33am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 4:01pm: jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much? Modelling the climate and landing a plane are world's apart. . you are starting to panic you putrid weasel freak clown Actually, it's the AGW alarmists who are panicking. Sceptics remain cool, calm and collected.

Everything's cool and dark when  you put your head in the sand.

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 2:47pm:

namnugenot wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 7:09pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 4:01pm: namnugenot wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 2:29pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:59am: VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!. The only model that takes account of all variables, interactions and negative and positive feedbacks is the one we're in...every thing else is speculation and most equates to garbage in, garbage out as in no models predicted the warming "pause"...so it can't happen...the model don't allow it. Here's a cooling prediction however from the IPCC for Britain (actually big chunks of the NH would be effected) for the gulf stream to slow by 20 to 44 percent. However to tie this to any anthropogenic warming is a bit rich as it has stopped and started many times in the past without our help. jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much? Funny I did't think the Wright brothers had a computer? What's that got to do with modelling vast climatic systems anyway? What has aerospace engineering to do with Climate Change?  Nothing whatsoever. Maybe somebody should tell Burt Rutan that.

You dont seem to mind a train engineer for gods sake, telling all and sundry about your religion of AGW though do you.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 9:59am:

VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ?

Hahahahaha.....aaaaaaahahahahaha!


Quote:

Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested?

I don't ever recall accepting a task from you?
I don't need to accept a task from you, I provided two skeptic predictions, but I'm not in the business of predictions. Apparently I'm just an oil shill paid to spread misinformation in a small internet community.


Quote:

You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!

Shhhh no more tears,
only dreams now.

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 2:47pm:

What has aerospace engineering to do with Climate Change?  Nothing whatsoever. Maybe somebody should tell Burt Rutan that.

Oh come on now, are you saying someone who's spent an entire extensive career working with data and analyzing data doesn't have authority to analyze data? What because he doesn't have a non-existent PHD in climate science?

Come on now Muso, did you even go through the presentation and see the manipulated data of the IPCC?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 2:04pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:30pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 7:33am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 4:01pm: jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much? Modelling the climate and landing a plane are world's apart. . you are starting to panic you putrid weasel freak clown Actually, it's the AGW alarmists who are panicking. Sceptics remain cool, calm and collected.

Bit of an oxymoron to compare sceptics with AGW deniers don't you think?

I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for the one who refers to himself as muso.

To enter this realm in disguise and pretend to post AGW denialist spin just to keep a thread topic chugging along is utterly unforgiveable.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 4:59pm:

muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 2:47pm: What has aerospace engineering to do with Climate Change?  Nothing whatsoever. Maybe somebody should tell Burt Rutan that. Oh come on now, are you saying someone who's spent an entire extensive career working with data and analyzing data doesn't have authority to analyze data? What because he doesn't have a non-existent PHD in climate science? Come on now Muso, did you even go through the presentation and see the manipulated data of the IPCC?

The problem is his focus. He focusses on historical data, particularly the Medieval Warming period. It's totally irrelevant to any argument.  Nobody has any accurate measurements from that period anyway. All we have is proxies for temperature and CO2. Solar Irradiance and other forcings for that period are pretty rubbery.

It's all quite interesting I'm sure, but really has nothing to do with the properties of the CO2 molecule, which is the crux of the matter. 

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 8:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 2:04pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:30pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 7:33am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 4:01pm: jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much? Modelling the climate and landing a plane are world's apart. . you are starting to panic you putrid weasel freak clown Actually, it's the AGW alarmists who are panicking. Sceptics remain cool, calm and collected. Bit of an oxymoron to compare sceptics with AGW deniers don't you think?

Is that what you're doing.

It's not what I'm doing.

Did you have your afternoon nap today?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 8:23pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 2:04pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:30pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 7:33am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 4:01pm: jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much? Modelling the climate and landing a plane are world's apart. . you are starting to panic you putrid weasel freak clown Actually, it's the AGW alarmists who are panicking. Sceptics remain cool, calm and collected. Bit of an oxymoron to compare sceptics with AGW deniers don't you think? Is that what you're doing. It's not what I'm doing. Did you have your afternoon nap today?

not much time for napping these days

been running some very long finite element analyses with extremely fine meshes. Average computation time is over 2 days.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 8:27pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:23pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 2:04pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:30pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 7:33am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 4:01pm: jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much? Modelling the climate and landing a plane are world's apart. . you are starting to panic you putrid weasel freak clown Actually, it's the AGW alarmists who are panicking. Sceptics remain cool, calm and collected. Bit of an oxymoron to compare sceptics with AGW deniers don't you think? Is that what you're doing. It's not what I'm doing. Did you have your afternoon nap today? not much time for napping these days been running some very long finite element analyses with extremely fine meshes. Average computation time is over 2 days.

Well, it's good to see you've got a hobby.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 8:18pm:

I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for the one who refers to himself as muso. To enter this realm in disguise and pretend to post AGW denialist spin just to keep a thread topic chugging along is utterly unforgiveable.

What on earth are you talking about Chimp? Where have I posted denialist spin?

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 8:31pm:

What on earth are you talking about Chimp?

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1730447315/NobodyKnows.jpg


Chimp is a genuine paranoid psychotic.

You've only just realised this?

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 4:44pm:

train engineer for gods sake

OK, I'm guessing that you're dying to tell me who that is. I tend to go from the basic science myself, so I have no idea which commentator you're talking about.

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 8:20pm:

The problem is his focus. He focusses on historical data, particularly the Medieval Warming period. It's totally irrelevant to any argument.  Nobody has any accurate measurements from that period anyway. All we have is proxies for temperature and CO2. Solar Irradiance and other forcings for that period are pretty rubbery. It's all quite interesting I'm sure, but really has nothing to do with the properties of the CO2 molecule, which is the crux of the matter.

You're right and I agree.
It focuses on history and credibility mainly and for that it's great at clearing up some claims like the hockey stick and pointing things out like temperature monitors next to air vents and waste treatment plants.

He does have in there some predictions and some information about adaptation/costs etc. The predictions are just extrapolated trends with nothing else really behind them, however it's main use is to show where people lose credibility.

That's exactly why I've posted it in the past, to help clear things up historically (as you rightly point out beyond a certain time period there's no real reliable data) and expose fraudulent acts. It's more of a politically centered piece against the IPCC rather than analysis of new research so you're right on that.

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 8:31pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:18pm: I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for the one who refers to himself as muso. To enter this realm in disguise and pretend to post AGW denialist spin just to keep a thread topic chugging along is utterly unforgiveable. What on earth are you talking about Chimp? Where have I posted denialist spin?

Ummm while you were gone poor Chimp and Spartacs went full blown conspiracy theorist on us. I wouldn't take it to heart, everybody knows you usually come from a knowledgeable standpoint, things just got foggy for some.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 8:58pm:

muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:31pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:18pm: I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for the one who refers to himself as muso. To enter this realm in disguise and pretend to post AGW denialist spin just to keep a thread topic chugging along is utterly unforgiveable. What on earth are you talking about Chimp? Where have I posted denialist spin? Ummm while you were gone poor Chimp and Spartacs went full blown conspiracy theorist on us. I wouldn't take it to heart, everybody knows you usually come from a knowledgeable standpoint, things just got foggy for some.

are you typing to yourself?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 9:14pm:

are you typing to yourself?

Wait do you think I'm Muso and Ajax? That we are one and the same?
You're serious.....

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 9:30pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:14pm: are you typing to yourself? Wait do you think I'm Muso and Ajax? That we are one and the same? You're serious.....

He's a paranoid psychotic.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 9:33pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:30pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:14pm: are you typing to yourself? Wait do you think I'm Muso and Ajax? That we are one and the same? You're serious..... He's a paranoid psychotic.

I am no longer genuine?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 10:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:30pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:14pm: are you typing to yourself? Wait do you think I'm Muso and Ajax? That we are one and the same? You're serious..... He's a paranoid psychotic. I am no longer genuine?

Hard to tell.

OK, to put your mind at rest, I am not Vuk.

However, I am more than happy to discuss this subject with anybody who will actually take time to listen rather than shouting stupid slogans about Al Gore.

I don't get my information from Al Gore, and I certainly don't get it from Skeptical Science either.   

There is no need for this discussion to get personal.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 10:13pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 10:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:30pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:14pm: are you typing to yourself? Wait do you think I'm Muso and Ajax? That we are one and the same? You're serious..... He's a paranoid psychotic. I am no longer genuine? Hard to tell.

well there is a huge difference between a genuine paranoid psychotic and just a plain, run of the mill, ordinary, paranoid psychotic

we wouldn't want anybody in here to get the wrong impression now would we Mr Greggy, you back pedalling priest

http://ih2.redbubble.net/image.9892924.3510/flat,550x550,075,f.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 11:03pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 10:13pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 10:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:30pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:14pm: are you typing to yourself? Wait do you think I'm Muso and Ajax? That we are one and the same? You're serious..... He's a paranoid psychotic. I am no longer genuine? Hard to tell. well there is a huge difference between a genuine paranoid psychotic and just a plain, run of the mill, ordinary, paranoid psychotic

If that makes you happy.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 6:42am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 11:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 10:13pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 10:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:30pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:14pm: are you typing to yourself? Wait do you think I'm Muso and Ajax? That we are one and the same? You're serious..... He's a paranoid psychotic. I am no longer genuine? Hard to tell. well there is a huge difference between a genuine paranoid psychotic and just a plain, run of the mill, ordinary, paranoid psychotic If that makes you happy.

So explain to everyone in here how you arrived at the factual conclusion that Human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de forestation CANNOT cause the planet to warm.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 10:08am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 6:42am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 11:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 10:13pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 10:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:30pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:14pm: are you typing to yourself? Wait do you think I'm Muso and Ajax? That we are one and the same? You're serious..... He's a paranoid psychotic. I am no longer genuine? Hard to tell. well there is a huge difference between a genuine paranoid psychotic and just a plain, run of the mill, ordinary, paranoid psychotic If that makes you happy. So explain to everyone in here how you arrived at the factual conclusion that Human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de forestation CANNOT cause the planet to warm.

Isn't deforestation additional to your original argument?
In any case you're confusing "could" with "did" which requires a burden of proof from you.
You still havn't "explained" the relationship between CO2 and temperature since the Precambrian...because you can't...without knocking down your own sand castle.

namnugenot wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 10:08am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 6:42am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 11:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 10:13pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 10:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:30pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:14pm: are you typing to yourself? Wait do you think I'm Muso and Ajax? That we are one and the same? You're serious..... He's a paranoid psychotic. I am no longer genuine? Hard to tell. well there is a huge difference between a genuine paranoid psychotic and just a plain, run of the mill, ordinary, paranoid psychotic If that makes you happy. So explain to everyone in here how you arrived at the factual conclusion that Human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de forestation CANNOT cause the planet to warm. Isn't deforestation additional to your original argument? In any case you're confusing "could" with "did" which requires a burden of proof from you. You still havn't "explained" the relationship between CO2 and temperature since the Precambrian...because you can't...without knocking down your own sand castle.

So you are claiming that CO2 is not a by product of fossil fuel combustion and that it is NOT a greenhouse gas.

Interesting idea you rotting slab of decaying weasel excrement

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 11:40am:

namnugenot wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 11:25am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 10:08am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 6:42am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 11:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 10:13pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 10:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:30pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:14pm: are you typing to yourself? Wait do you think I'm Muso and Ajax? That we are one and the same? You're serious..... He's a paranoid psychotic. I am no longer genuine? Hard to tell. well there is a huge difference between a genuine paranoid psychotic and just a plain, run of the mill, ordinary, paranoid psychotic If that makes you happy. So explain to everyone in here how you arrived at the factual conclusion that Human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de forestation CANNOT cause the planet to warm. Isn't deforestation additional to your original argument? In any case you're confusing "could" with "did" which requires a burden of proof from you. You still havn't "explained" the relationship between CO2 and temperature since the Precambrian...because you can't...without knocking down your own sand castle. So you are claiming that CO2 is not a by product of fossil fuel combustion and that it is NOT a greenhouse gas. Interesting idea you rotting slab of decaying weasel excrement

Don't go misrepresenting what I said to suit yourself..."could" and "did" two different concepts...like "cause" and "effect"...you don't recognize them....science 101... 

Lol do you guys want to perhaps maybe try to stick to quoting one post instead of re quoting the entire thread in each reply?  :)

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 12:03pm:

Lol do you guys want to perhaps maybe try to stick to quoting one post instead of re quoting the entire thread in each reply?  :)

Chimp has a tiny attention span...if he has to scroll up to the top he's forget what he was looking for...  :D

namnugenot wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 11:54am:

....science 101...

Then you would understand that rising CO2 levels attributed to human activities cause our planet's thermal retention rate to increase.

This basic undeniable, verifiable scientific FACT is commonly known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)

It is a well established basic primary school level scientific fact that empirically dates back to the late 1980s

You need to get with the times!

Have you found any models and accompanying theoretical foundations that show cooling or static global temperatures as CO2 levels increase with time?

good luck with that assignment - you may need to contact the priests in your church group to get assistance (I am sure they may be able to equip you with the necessary lies and distractions)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

namnugenot wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 11:54am: ....science 101...  Then you would understand that rising CO2 levels attributed to human activities cause our planet's thermal retention rate to increase. This basic undeniable, verifiable scientific FACT is commonly known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) It is a well established basic primary school level scientific fact that empirically dates back to the late 1980s You need to get with the times! Have you found any models and accompanying theoretical foundations that show cooling or static global temperatures as CO2 levels increase with time? good luck with that assignment - you may need to contact the priests in your church group to get assistance (I am sure they may be able to equip you with the necessary lies and distractions)

Attributed...again...attribution and causation...not the same thing.
Lots of things cure disease in petri dishes but don't in the real world...it's the same thing.
Just because you label something a FACT does not make it one.
Interesting that the IPCC is now saying the UK will cool...I know I should be running around and wringing my hands.
I'm not going to.

namnugenot wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 12:21pm: namnugenot wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 11:54am: ....science 101...  Then you would understand that rising CO2 levels attributed to human activities cause our planet's thermal retention rate to increase. This basic undeniable, verifiable scientific FACT is commonly known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) It is a well established basic primary school level scientific fact that empirically dates back to the late 1980s You need to get with the times! Have you found any models and accompanying theoretical foundations that show cooling or static global temperatures as CO2 levels increase with time? good luck with that assignment - you may need to contact the priests in your church group to get assistance (I am sure they may be able to equip you with the necessary lies and distractions) you label something a FACT does not make it one. Interesting that the IPCC is now saying the UK will cool...I know I should be running around and wringing my hands. I'm not going to.

WOW - the entire UK?

Gee

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 12:49pm:

namnugenot wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 12:41pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 12:21pm: namnugenot wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 11:54am: ....science 101...  Then you would understand that rising CO2 levels attributed to human activities cause our planet's thermal retention rate to increase. This basic undeniable, verifiable scientific FACT is commonly known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) It is a well established basic primary school level scientific fact that empirically dates back to the late 1980s You need to get with the times! Have you found any models and accompanying theoretical foundations that show cooling or static global temperatures as CO2 levels increase with time? good luck with that assignment - you may need to contact the priests in your church group to get assistance (I am sure they may be able to equip you with the necessary lies and distractions) you label something a FACT does not make it one. Interesting that the IPCC is now saying the UK will cool...I know I should be running around and wringing my hands. I'm not going to. WOW - the entire UK? Gee

Yeah I thought so too...because they based it on a slowing of the Gulf Stream by 20 to 44%...so that would also mean North America...
and Europe...as well...but you know these IPCC idiots.  ::)

namnugenot wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

Yeah I thought so too...because they based it on a slowing of the Gulf Stream by 20 to 44%...so that would also mean North America... and Europe...as well...but you know these IPCC idiots.  ::)

Have you found any models and accompanying theoretical foundations that show cooling or static global temperatures as CO2 levels increase with time?

good luck with that assignment - you may need to contact the priests in your church group to get assistance (I am sure they may be able to equip you with the necessary lies and distractions)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 1:44pm:

namnugenot wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 1:32pm: Yeah I thought so too...because they based it on a slowing of the Gulf Stream by 20 to 44%...so that would also mean North America... and Europe...as well...but you know these IPCC idiots.  ::) Have you found any models and accompanying theoretical foundations that show cooling or static global temperatures as CO2 levels increase with time? good luck with that assignment - you may need to contact the priests in your church group to get assistance (I am sure they may be able to equip you with the necessary lies and distractions)

Are you bitter and angry because your models have been wrong for the last 15 years...wait I'll rephrase...wronger than usual for the past 15 years.  ;D

namnugenot wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 2:59pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 1:44pm: namnugenot wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 1:32pm: Yeah I thought so too...because they based it on a slowing of the Gulf Stream by 20 to 44%...so that would also mean North America... and Europe...as well...but you know these IPCC idiots.  ::) Have you found any models and accompanying theoretical foundations that show cooling or static global temperatures as CO2 levels increase with time? good luck with that assignment - you may need to contact the priests in your church group to get assistance (I am sure they may be able to equip you with the necessary lies and distractions) Are you bitter and angry because your models have been wrong for the last 15 years...wait I'll rephrase...wronger than usual for the past 15 years.  ;D

...where are the models that predict Cooling/static temperature scenarios as CO2 levels increase?

Describe the theoretical basis for these models.

IF YOU CAN FIND ANY!

good luck with your 101 assignment. You may need to attend the church groups Mr Ajax and vuk11 attend - they are also working on this simple task.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 3:33pm:

good luck with your 101 assignment. You may need to attend the church groups Mr Ajax and vuk11 attend - they are also working on this simple task[/b].[/size]

Lol no we aren't :)

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 3:44pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 3:33pm: good luck with your 101 assignment. You may need to attend the church groups Mr Ajax and vuk11 attend - they are also working on this simple task[/b].[/size] Lol no we aren't :)

you are pacing yourselves until the end of 2019?

You're cutting it a bit fine aren't you vuk11?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 3:44pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 3:33pm: good luck with your 101 assignment. You may need to attend the church groups Mr Ajax and vuk11 attend - they are also working on this simple task[/b].[/size] Lol no we aren't :) you are pacing yourselves until the end of 2019? You're cutting it a bit fine aren't you vuk11?

---

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 3:47pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 3:44pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 3:33pm: good luck with your 101 assignment. You may need to attend the church groups Mr Ajax and vuk11 attend - they are also working on this simple task[/b].[/size] Lol no we aren't :) you are pacing yourselves until the end of 2019? You're cutting it a bit fine aren't you vuk11?

is that what you and muso think? ;)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 4:24pm:

is that what you and muso think? ;)

In my opinion it seems like you think you have some sort of authority?
No one is playing your silly straw men games Chimp, the fact that you get replies is just a sign of how easy it is for people to take a trolls bait.

But go on keep misrepresenting everything we say it's entertaining if not a little bit irritating.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 4:24pm: is that what you and muso think? ;) In my opinion it seems like you think you have some sort of authority? .

no, my goal here is to be permanently banned - it would be an honour to be dismissed by a fascist fake regime of neurotic clown freaks and liars

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 4:24pm: is that what you and muso think? ;) But go on keep misrepresenting everything we say it's entertaining if not a little bit irritating.

there it is again - WE

who exactly are members of your church group?

cant you think for yourself vuk11 or whoever you are pretending to be ???

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 5:16pm:

there it is again - WE who exactly are members of your church group? cant you think for yourself vuk11 or whoever you are pretending to be ???

I was merely referring to everyone you reply to with your silly straw men arguments, I am a member of no church.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 5:16pm: there it is again - WE who exactly are members of your church group? cant you think for yourself vuk11 or whoever you are pretending to be ??? I was merely referring to everyone you reply to with your silly straw men arguments, I am a member of no church.

no actual need to mount any arguments against blatant spin and lies

I merely throw back all the garbage you post

You don't seem to be handling your own spin all that well

See what happens when you post propaganda to support your political agenda?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 5:14pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 5:06pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 4:24pm: is that what you and muso think? ;) In my opinion it seems like you think you have some sort of authority? . no, my goal here is to be permanently banned - it would be an honour to be dismissed by a fascist fake regime of neurotic clown freaks and liars

Don't be a fool.

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

# wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 10:18am: From the smallest club, through company boards to the governments of our states and nation, the significance of majority is recognised. Perversely, those in denial about global warming assert that a majority of scientists is insignificant. Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists? More people believe that there is a god than don't so what god do you believe in?

I think you'll find Complicit Conspirator ( aka I B ) 
that the number of people who claim no religion has been on a continuous upward trend for many yrs now, in B of Stats .

And let us not forget .. many people are incapable of properly understanding and answering 'Forms'...   so the results are always skewed.
People who were brought up in say..  a Cof E family...  may never have thought of the dogma associated..  ever..  ::) but when faced with a Census form... and asked about religion/.....  will put down C of E  ..even tho it is totally irrelevant and non existent in their daily lives.. 

Statistics...   ::)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 11:40am:

namnugenot wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 11:25am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 10:08am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 6:42am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 11:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 10:13pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 10:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:30pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 9:14pm: are you typing to yourself? Wait do you think I'm Muso and Ajax? That we are one and the same? You're serious..... He's a paranoid psychotic. I am no longer genuine? Hard to tell. well there is a huge difference between a genuine paranoid psychotic and just a plain, run of the mill, ordinary, paranoid psychotic If that makes you happy. So explain to everyone in here how you arrived at the factual conclusion that Human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de forestation CANNOT cause the planet to warm. Isn't deforestation additional to your original argument? In any case you're confusing "could" with "did" which requires a burden of proof from you. You still havn't "explained" the relationship between CO2 and temperature since the Precambrian...because you can't...without knocking down your own sand castle. So you are claiming that CO2 is not a by product of fossil fuel combustion and that it is NOT a greenhouse gas. Interesting idea you rotting slab of decaying weasel excrement

Hee heee  ;D ;D :) ;)

don't it make ya wonder...? 

Well said CL :)

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 5:14pm: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 5:06pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 24th, 2013 at 4:24pm: is that what you and muso think? ;) In my opinion it seems like you think you have some sort of authority? . no, my goal here is to be permanently banned - it would be an honour to be dismissed by a fascist fake regime of neurotic clown freaks and liars Don't be a fool.

foolosophy: the wisdom of foolishness

Chimpy the Earth is going to cool, because the sun hasn't got any more measles, well at least not for acouple of decades anyway.

Its already started, we have had more than one third of ALL manmade CO2 emissions going into our atmosphere since 1998 yet temperature have flat lined.

This has left your furores scratching their heads, their computer circulations models showed unequivocal every decade.

HHHmmmmnnnn now do you think there might be something wrong with their hypothesis....????

Its not in a test tube.......!!!...pal.... this is the Earth we're talking about.....????

Ajax wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 4:40pm:

Chimpy the Earth is going to cool, because the sun hasn't got any more measles, well at least not for acouple of decades anyway. Its already started, we have had more than one third of ALL manmade CO2 emissions going into our atmosphere since 1998 yet temperature have flat lined. This has left your furores scratching their heads, their computer circulations models showed unequivocal every decade. HHHmmmmnnnn now do you think there might be something wrong with their hypothesis....???? Its not in a test tube.......!!!...pal.... this is the Earth we're talking about.....????

the thermal retention rate hasn't flat lined

You need to study some more Mr Ajax - go deeper into the realm of truth just like the great ancient Greek philosophers did.

You may not like what you find!

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 7:04pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 4:40pm: Chimpy the Earth is going to cool, because the sun hasn't got any more measles, well at least not for acouple of decades anyway. Its already started, we have had more than one third of ALL manmade CO2 emissions going into our atmosphere since 1998 yet temperature have flat lined. This has left your furores scratching their heads, their computer circulations models showed unequivocal every decade. HHHmmmmnnnn now do you think there might be something wrong with their hypothesis....???? Its not in a test tube.......!!!...pal.... this is the Earth we're talking about.....???? the thermal retention rate hasn't flat lined You need to study some more Mr Ajax - go deeper into the realm of truth just like the great ancient Greek philosophers did. You may not like what you find!

:D ;D 8-) :P
http://i44.tinypic.com/e0lq8n.jpg

Ajax wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 12:07pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 7:04pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 4:40pm: Chimpy the Earth is going to cool, because the sun hasn't got any more measles, well at least not for acouple of decades anyway. Its already started, we have had more than one third of ALL manmade CO2 emissions going into our atmosphere since 1998 yet temperature have flat lined. This has left your furores scratching their heads, their computer circulations models showed unequivocal every decade. HHHmmmmnnnn now do you think there might be something wrong with their hypothesis....???? Its not in a test tube.......!!!...pal.... this is the Earth we're talking about.....???? the thermal retention rate hasn't flat lined You need to study some more Mr Ajax - go deeper into the realm of truth just like the great ancient Greek philosophers did. You may not like what you find! :D ;D 8-) :P http://i44.tinypic.com/e0lq8n.jpg

are you having romantic notions Ajax?

and you're not even Greek - very funny indeed

Let's not go there.

Tony Abbott's new direct action sceptics

Leading economists have overwhelmingly rejected Tony Abbott's direct action climate change policy and backed carbon pricing.

A Fairfax Media survey of 35 prominent university and business economists found only two believed direct action was the better way to limit Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Thirty - or 86 per cent - favoured the existing carbon price scheme. Three rejected both schemes.

Internationally renowned Australian economist Justin Wolfers, of the Washington-based Brookings Institution and the University of Michigan, said he was surprised that any economists would opt for direct action, under which the government will pay for emissions cuts by businesses and farmers from a budget worth $2.88 billion over four years.
Advertisement

Professor Wolfers said direct action would involve more economic disruption but have a lesser environmental pay-off than an emissions trading scheme, under which big emitters must pay for their pollution.

The extraordinary challenge of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees - the level scientists consider necessary - was underlined by a new report by European consultants Ecofys that found Australia would have to cut emissions by at least 27 per cent by 2020 to play its part.

Australia has a bipartisan target of 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. The Climate Change Authority - set up by Labor and which the Coalition plans to abolish - will this week release its draft recommendation on Australia's 2020 target.

Some said the direct action plan would rely too much on bureaucratic decisions. "If I had to make a choice between pricing carbon and having bureaucrats allocating permits, then I'm going to go for the market mechanism every time," said Rob Henderson, a National Australia Bank senior economist.

Link -
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-new-direct-action-sceptics-20131027-2w9va.html
===========================================
It seems there may now be both a scientific & an Economists majority?

The lesser of two evils it seems.

Ajax's head is now spinning with tax neurosis

Even Ajax's moral and intellectual mentors Bolt and Abbott-oir are now on the nose with most economists let alone scientists

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 9:54am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:22am: # wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 8:54am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 10:32am: ... majority is totally meaningless in science, ... What is majority? Is it a statistic? Do statistics have no place in science? The fact of the consensus offends the denialist faithful. The fact that the consensus hardens by the day whips them into frenzies of further denial. Doesn't change the facts though. gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 10:32am: Since science is 'majority based', does that mean that the Earth is flat, at the centre of the Universe, and the Sun orbits the Earth??? I presume you're getting confused over Galileo and Copernicus. Galileo was a scientist who had the temerity to elevate science over the dominant religious orthodoxy. He didn't discover anything new; if you look into it, you'll find that the Greeks knew that the earth is round, centuries before Christ. Copernicus, I'll leave to you. That you don't know the difference between science and religion does your credibility no good. It probably explains your denialism though. That you can't spot sarcasm isn't that much of a surprise... But being confused over 'majority' when that's the thread title that YOU chose is just ridiculous. And selectively quoting a response to your OP is being deliberately dishonest.. p.s Not 'denialism'...skepticism. scepticism is a Greek word, it means being able to think and question what is happening in the world around you and temper that understanding with experience and wisdom. It is a critical element in the scientific method. that kind of rules you out doesn't it you smelly freaked up weasel stench clown maggot

Actually..it 'rules' me 'IN', since the concept of 'scepticism' means ' being able to think and question what is happening in the world around you and temper that understanding with experience and wisdom.'...which is what I actually do..

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 4:31pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 4:01pm: namnugenot wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 2:29pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:59am: VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!. The only model that takes account of all variables, interactions and negative and positive feedbacks is the one we're in...every thing else is speculation and most equates to garbage in, garbage out as in no models predicted the warming "pause"...so it can't happen...the model don't allow it. Here's a cooling prediction however from the IPCC for Britain (actually big chunks of the NH would be effected) for the gulf stream to slow by 20 to 44 percent. However to tie this to any anthropogenic warming is a bit rich as it has stopped and started many times in the past without our help. jet powered flight is also controlled and optimised using computer modelling theory and empirical data do you fly much? ;D ;D ;D ;D So what your saying is, if jet propulsion models were done by climate change pseudo scientist, every plane would never have gotten off the ground without crashing.

Yes, that is exactly what he is saying...

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 9:59am:

VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!.

Yes, I have been, what's your point??

"Spring Fires" in NSW are NOT in anyway unusual

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:54am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:22am: # wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 8:54am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 10:32am: ... majority is totally meaningless in science, ... What is majority? Is it a statistic? Do statistics have no place in science? The fact of the consensus offends the denialist faithful. The fact that the consensus hardens by the day whips them into frenzies of further denial. Doesn't change the facts though. gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 10:32am: Since science is 'majority based', does that mean that the Earth is flat, at the centre of the Universe, and the Sun orbits the Earth??? I presume you're getting confused over Galileo and Copernicus. Galileo was a scientist who had the temerity to elevate science over the dominant religious orthodoxy. He didn't discover anything new; if you look into it, you'll find that the Greeks knew that the earth is round, centuries before Christ. Copernicus, I'll leave to you. That you don't know the difference between science and religion does your credibility no good. It probably explains your denialism though. That you can't spot sarcasm isn't that much of a surprise... But being confused over 'majority' when that's the thread title that YOU chose is just ridiculous. And selectively quoting a response to your OP is being deliberately dishonest.. p.s Not 'denialism'...skepticism. scepticism is a Greek word, it means being able to think and question what is happening in the world around you and temper that understanding with experience and wisdom. It is a critical element in the scientific method. that kind of rules you out doesn't it you smelly freaked up weasel stench clown maggot Actually..it 'rules' me 'IN', since the concept of 'scepticism' means ' being able to think and question what is happening in the world around you and temper that understanding with experience and wisdom.'...which is what I actually do..

I cant find any evidence that supports your public sermon and its application to your particular situation.

And on that basis alone, you are required to render a public and written apology.

You have 36 hours to satisfy these requirements otherwise you risk been referred to as a filthy rotting seam of decaying sloth excrement stench.

And we wouldn't want that to eventuate - NOW WOULD WE MR gizmo you freak clown maggot

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:59am: VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!. Yes, I have been, what's your point?? "Spring Fires" in NSW are NOT in anyway unusual

Spring Fires?

You even have a term for it now.

Congratulations you freaked up roped puppet scoundrel

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 1:42pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 1:37pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:59am: VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!. Yes, I have been, what's your point?? "Spring Fires" in NSW are NOT in anyway unusual Spring Fires? You even have a term for it now. Congratulations you freaked up roped puppet scoundrel

LOL, well since I used YOUR term that would make YOU a 'freaked up roped puppet scoundrel', wouldn't it??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 1:42pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 1:37pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:59am: VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!. Yes, I have been, what's your point?? "Spring Fires" in NSW are NOT in anyway unusual Spring Fires? You even have a term for it now. Congratulations you freaked up roped puppet scoundrel LOL, well since I used YOUR term that would make YOU a 'freaked up roped puppet scoundrel', wouldn't it??

I am not that good

One must earn that prestigious title gizmo

And you put in a lot work - a really large volume of work to reach the state youre in at the moment

congratulations

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 2:05pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 1:45pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 1:42pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 1:37pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:59am: VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!. Yes, I have been, what's your point?? "Spring Fires" in NSW are NOT in anyway unusual Spring Fires? You even have a term for it now. Congratulations you freaked up roped puppet scoundrel LOL, well since I used YOUR term that would make YOU a 'freaked up roped puppet scoundrel', wouldn't it?? I am not that good One must earn that prestigious title gizmo And you put in a lot work - a really large volume of work to reach the state youre in at the moment congratulations

Well, NO you aren't..BUT, 'spring fires' is still the idea that YOU mentioned..

And, I'm sorry...BUT I was a member of the RFS (Rural Fire Service, or the Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, which ever term you prefer) and bush fires in spring time are nothing unusual....so the whole idea of bush fires as a result of 'climate change' is a load of poo...

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 1:42pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 1:37pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:59am: VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!. Yes, I have been, what's your point?? "Spring Fires" in NSW are NOT in anyway unusual Spring Fires? You even have a term for it now.

Yes, the term you coined:

"Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ?"  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1381018715/15#15

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 1:42pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 1:37pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 9:59am: VUK11 and Ajax Clowns Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ? Where is the cooling/static temperature model and supporting theories, that I requested? You only have until the end of 2019, you better get to work soon on your simple task!!. Yes, I have been, what's your point?? "Spring Fires" in NSW are NOT in anyway unusual Spring Fires? You even have a term for it now. Yes, the term you coined: "Have you both been following the spring fires in NSW ?"  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1381018715/15#15

I know Greggy, they are even using my material now the filthy rotten decaying sloth puppet maggot pussed up stenched down excremental residue.

I suppose I should be flattered, but then again I am not in this forum to be flattered.

I am here to be banned - and it must be a permanent ban for disseminated truth - the ultimate crime in ozpolitic.com

......of course you wouldn't understand Greggy boy - you lack the "I" and "C" components in a persons character

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

Well, NO you aren't..BUT, 'spring fires' is still the idea that YOU mentioned.. And, I'm sorry...BUT I was a member of the RFS (Rural Fire Service, or the Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, which ever term you prefer) and bush fires in spring time are nothing unusual....so the whole idea of bush fires as a result of 'climate change' is a load of poo...

"Australia's bushfire seasons:

"New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer ... "

http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 2:10pm: Well, NO you aren't..BUT, 'spring fires' is still the idea that YOU mentioned.. And, I'm sorry...BUT I was a member of the RFS (Rural Fire Service, or the Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, which ever term you prefer) and bush fires in spring time are nothing unusual....so the whole idea of bush fires as a result of 'climate change' is a load of poo... "Australia's bushfire seasons: "New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer ... " http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/

DENIAR  ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 2:10pm: Well, NO you aren't..BUT, 'spring fires' is still the idea that YOU mentioned.. And, I'm sorry...BUT I was a member of the RFS (Rural Fire Service, or the Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, which ever term you prefer) and bush fires in spring time are nothing unusual....so the whole idea of bush fires as a result of 'climate change' is a load of poo... "Australia's bushfire seasons: "New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer ... " http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/

List the historical instances where state wide MULTIPLE major bush fires occur ad the start of Spring, ie right at the end of Winter

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 6:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 4:41pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 2:10pm: Well, NO you aren't..BUT, 'spring fires' is still the idea that YOU mentioned.. And, I'm sorry...BUT I was a member of the RFS (Rural Fire Service, or the Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, which ever term you prefer) and bush fires in spring time are nothing unusual....so the whole idea of bush fires as a result of 'climate change' is a load of poo... "Australia's bushfire seasons: "New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer ... " http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/ List the historical instances where state wide MULTIPLE major bush fires occur ad the start of Spring, ie right at the end of Winter

October is the second month of spring.  It is not the start of spring.

"Spring - the three transition months September, October and November".

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/seasons.shtml

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 6:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 4:41pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 2:10pm: Well, NO you aren't..BUT, 'spring fires' is still the idea that YOU mentioned.. And, I'm sorry...BUT I was a member of the RFS (Rural Fire Service, or the Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, which ever term you prefer) and bush fires in spring time are nothing unusual....so the whole idea of bush fires as a result of 'climate change' is a load of poo... "Australia's bushfire seasons: "New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer ... " http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/ List the historical instances where state wide MULTIPLE major bush fires occur ad the start of Spring, ie right at the end of Winter October is the second month of spring.  It is not the start of spring. "Spring - the three transition months September, October and November". http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/seasons.shtml

the Blue mountains where threatened with fires in September

Don't you remember? Bit early don't you think?

You see Mr Greggy? See what happens when you misslead in public?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:02pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 6:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 4:41pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 2:10pm: Well, NO you aren't..BUT, 'spring fires' is still the idea that YOU mentioned.. And, I'm sorry...BUT I was a member of the RFS (Rural Fire Service, or the Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, which ever term you prefer) and bush fires in spring time are nothing unusual....so the whole idea of bush fires as a result of 'climate change' is a load of poo... "Australia's bushfire seasons: "New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer ... " http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/ List the historical instances where state wide MULTIPLE major bush fires occur ad the start of Spring, ie right at the end of Winter October is the second month of spring.  It is not the start of spring. "Spring - the three transition months September, October and November". http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/seasons.shtml the Blue mountains where threatened with fires in September Don't you remember? Bit early don't you think?

No: September is part of spring.

"Australia's bushfire seasons:

"New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer ... "

("threatened" - nice try   ;D )

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:02pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 6:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 4:41pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 2:10pm: Well, NO you aren't..BUT, 'spring fires' is still the idea that YOU mentioned.. And, I'm sorry...BUT I was a member of the RFS (Rural Fire Service, or the Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, which ever term you prefer) and bush fires in spring time are nothing unusual....so the whole idea of bush fires as a result of 'climate change' is a load of poo... "Australia's bushfire seasons: "New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer ... " http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/ List the historical instances where state wide MULTIPLE major bush fires occur ad the start of Spring, ie right at the end of Winter October is the second month of spring.  It is not the start of spring. "Spring - the three transition months September, October and November". http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/seasons.shtml the Blue mountains where threatened with fires in September Don't you remember? Bit early don't you think? No: September is part of spring. "Australia's bushfire seasons: "New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer ... " ("threatened" - nice try   ;D )

what was the date of the first fire in the Blue Mountains?

Do some research mr Greggy

Do you think the warming planet has increased the intensity and frequency of bush fire events in Australia?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 7:44pm:

Do you think the warming planet has increased the intensity and frequency of bush fire events in Australia?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 7:44pm:

what was the date of the first fire in the Blue Mountains?

Sunday, 13th October.

Well into the second month of spring.

"Australia's bushfire seasons:

"New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer"

http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/

Why do you ask, Chimp?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:44pm: what was the date of the first fire in the Blue Mountains? Sunday, 13th October. Well into the second month of spring. "Australia's bushfire seasons: "New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer" http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/ Why do you ask, Chimp?

Is that a fact?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 8:27pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:54pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:44pm: what was the date of the first fire in the Blue Mountains? Sunday, 13th October. Well into the second month of spring. "Australia's bushfire seasons: "New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer" http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/ Why do you ask, Chimp? Is that a fact?

Yes, it is.

Why do you ask, Chimp?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 8:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:54pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:44pm: what was the date of the first fire in the Blue Mountains? Sunday, 13th October. Well into the second month of spring. "Australia's bushfire seasons: "New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer" http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/ Why do you ask, Chimp? Is that a fact? Yes, it is. Why do you ask, Chimp?

Just wondering whether it was one of your theories

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 8:29pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 8:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:54pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:44pm: what was the date of the first fire in the Blue Mountains? Sunday, 13th October. Well into the second month of spring. "Australia's bushfire seasons: "New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer" http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/ Why do you ask, Chimp? Is that a fact? Yes, it is. Why do you ask, Chimp? Just wondering whether it was one of your theories

http://intelligentdiscontent.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/backpedaling34.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 8:38pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 8:35pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 8:29pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 8:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:54pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:44pm: what was the date of the first fire in the Blue Mountains? Sunday, 13th October. Well into the second month of spring. "Australia's bushfire seasons: "New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer" http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/ Why do you ask, Chimp? Is that a fact? Yes, it is. Why do you ask, Chimp? Just wondering whether it was one of your theories http://intelligentdiscontent.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/backpedaling34.jpg

are you absolutely certain that the Blue Mountains didn't have fires in September?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 8:40pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 8:38pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 8:35pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 8:29pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 8:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:54pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:44pm: what was the date of the first fire in the Blue Mountains? Sunday, 13th October. Well into the second month of spring. "Australia's bushfire seasons: "New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer" http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/ Why do you ask, Chimp? Is that a fact? Yes, it is. Why do you ask, Chimp? Just wondering whether it was one of your theories http://intelligentdiscontent.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/backpedaling34.jpg are you absolutely certain that the Blue Mountains didn't have fires in September?

"September"?  That's spring, isn't it?

"Australia's bushfire seasons:

"New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer"

http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 8:40pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 8:38pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 8:35pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 8:29pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 8:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:54pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 7:44pm: what was the date of the first fire in the Blue Mountains? Sunday, 13th October. Well into the second month of spring. "Australia's bushfire seasons: "New South Wales and southern Queensland—spring to mid-summer" http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2013/04/australias-bushfire-seasons/ Why do you ask, Chimp? Is that a fact? Yes, it is. Why do you ask, Chimp? Just wondering whether it was one of your theories http://intelligentdiscontent.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/backpedaling34.jpg are you absolutely certain that the Blue Mountains didn't have fires in September?

The Blue Mountains?

Yes.

http://pigeonchess.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/crickets.gif

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 9:03pm:

http://pigeonchess.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/crickets.gif

So when did your theory transition to an undeniable fact of nature?

I'm not getting in to this thread, because the effects we're seeing at this stage are subtle. I wouldn't like to put money on whether or not this particular episode is due to global warming.  It's a bit too early to say. When we get to the stage of + 2 degrees, the more severe effects will become apparent. 

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 9:21pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 9:03pm: http://pigeonchess.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/crickets.gif So when did your theory transition to an undeniable fact of nature?

When did you stop beating your wife/husband?

muso wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 9:21pm:

I'm not getting in to this thread, because the effects we're seeing at this stage are subtle. I wouldn't like to put money on whether or not this particular episode is due to global warming.  It's a bit too early to say. When we get to the stage of + 2 degrees, the more severe effects will become apparent.

you make a good point muso

An individual weather event cant definitively be attributed to a warming planet but a statistically significant trend in event intensity and/or frequency can.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 28^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

muso wrote on Oct 28th, 2013 at 9:21pm: I'm not getting in to this thread, because the effects we're seeing at this stage are subtle. I wouldn't like to put money on whether or not this particular episode is due to global warming.  It's a bit too early to say. When we get to the stage of + 2 degrees, the more severe effects will become apparent.  you make a good point muso An individual weather event cant definitively be attributed to a warming planet but a statistically significant trend in event intensity and/or frequency can.

No doubt about that, and there have been some good studies in that area. Unfortunately Adam Bandt's recent proclamations have not really helped. If we are to get the point across, it must be through painfully methodical application of the facts.

It's important that we don't contaminate those facts with political propaganda.