survey shows more Aussies are cool on warming

IT’S a miracle. Most Australians are now global warming sceptics, despite years of being misled by the media.

A CSIRO survey of more than 5000 people has confirmed it, even though warmist reporters tried to spin it.

For the first time since Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth claimed man was heating the world to disaster, Australians who believe this scare are outnumbered by those who don’t. True, a worrying 45.9 per cent of Australians do still think man is mostly to blame for what warming we’ve seen over the past several decades.

But those believers are now outnumbered by people who think this warming is natural (38.6 per cent) or not occurring at all (7.9 per cent) — which means sceptics total 46.5 per cent. The rest don’t know.

In fact, even 19 per cent of Greens voters are sceptics. Yes, the shift is that huge. What a tribute to the good sense of Australians.

For nearly a decade, reporters claimed the vast majority of you believed man really was heating the world dangerously. And the media campaigned furiously to make sure you did. You were bombarded with propaganda. Your doubts were mocked. You were told that the world’s temperature was soaring, when there’s actually been no significant warming of the atmosphere for some 18 years.

You were told we were getting more and worse cyclones, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report in fact admits neither seems true and, if anything, we’re getting fewer.

You were told by Professor Tim Flannery in 2007 that warming could dry out the dams of Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide within a couple of years because “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems”. Except it did, repeatedly, to the point of flooding.  ;D

You were told by the ABC’s chief science presenter, Robyn Williams, the seas could rise up to 100 metres this century, thanks to a dramatic melting of the Antarctic — which NASA last week conceded was instead increasing in ice mass.
  ;D
You were told by the UN that the world’s food crops would fail, when they’ve instead set new records.

You were told to beware of giant hailstones (Professor Ross Garnaut), dengue fever (Professor Tony McMichael), tsunamis (World Vision boss Tim Costello), killer heatwaves (Professor Peter Doherty), seas as high as “an eight-storey building” (Flannery), a “permanent drought” (Greens leader Bob Brown) and a dead Great Barrier Reef by 2050 (Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg).

Your politicians, with rare exceptions, failed you. They should have challenged this disgraceful alarmism. Instead, they exploited it and even forced you to pay billions for fake schemes and taxes to “stop” a warming that actually halted or dramatically slowed nearly two decades ago.  ::)

Yet this miracle has occurred. You’ve kept your heads when so many journalists tried so hard to make you panic.

In fact, they’re still at it, even with this report, which the warmist CSIRO quietly slipped out among the distractions of Melbourne Cup day.

None of the media reports pointed out the central finding: that believers in man-made global warming are now in a minority in Australia.

Instead, they tried to bury it with spin. Typically, the ABC was worst, actually giving the impression that global warming faith was as strong as ever. “Research by the CSIRO has found more than three quarters of Australians agree climate change is happening,” it burbled, “with divisions emerging along political lines”. Excuse me, but this debate has never been about whether “climate change is real”.

Of course, it’s real. The climate always changes. The real debate is what caused what warming we’ve seen — and whether more warming is bad and worth trying to stop.

The Sydney Morning Herald and Age were little better, spinning the CSIRO’s results into a story of how Coalition voters were numbskulls — the holdouts refusing to “accept” the truth: “Barely one in four Coalition voters accepts climate change is mostly caused by humans,” its tut-tutting report began.

It even added the hope, expressed by an alarmist scientist, that new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull could save the Liberals from this error: “Many Coalition voters will take their cue from the PM and shift their views.”

Don’t count on it, champ. He tried to shift the views of Coalition supporters the last time he was Liberal leader and it cost him his job.

Face facts: the public smells the warmist bull and is finally crying: “Enough!” The time for truth is now.  >:(

I think that the majority, of that minority, of those warmist, are on this forum...

numbskulls...  ::)

what?

have all you cowards and snake oil salesmen gone into hiding like Bull Shittens branch stackers??

ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge


Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story

ExxonMobil gave more than $2.3m to members of Congress and a corporate lobbying group that deny climate change and block efforts to fight climate change – eight years after pledging to stop its funding of climate denial, the Guardian has learned.

Climate denial – from Republicans in Congress and lobby groups operating at the state level – is seen as a major obstacle to US and global efforts to fight climate change, closing off the possibility of federal and state regulations cutting greenhouse gas emissions and the ability to plan for a future of sea-level rise and extreme weather.

Exxon channeled about $30m to researchers and activist groups promoting disinformation about global warming over the years, according to a tally kept by the campaign group Greenpeace. But the oil company pledged to stop such funding in 2007, in response to pressure from shareholder activists.

“In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner,” Exxon said in its 2007 Corporate Citizenship report.

But since 2007, the oil company has given $1.87m to Republicans in Congress who deny climate change and an additional $454,000 to the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), according to financial and tax records.

In a statement to the Guardian this week, Exxon spokesman Richard Keil reiterated: “ExxonMobil does not fund climate denial.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

How Margaret Thatcher led the way on climate change

Nearly two decades before Al Gore raised awareness of climate change, Margaret Thatcher was calling for an international scientific body to investigate the issue.

Back in 1988, however, it was a different politician who put the science of climate change firmly on the global agenda. Unbeknownst to many, that person was Margaret Thatcher.

As a Fellow of the Royal Society, Britain's national science academy, she presented a series of high profile speeches on the topic of climate change. Armed with a degree in chemistry from Oxford, her scientific expertise enabled her to speak from a position of strength and knowledge about climate-related issues.

She used that knowledge to act as a champion for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and personally opened the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (the UK's foremost climate change research centre).

What many people admired about Margaret Thatcher was her ability to embrace the potential of science to guide and lead the way on environmental issues. What marked her out even more is that she embraced the 'precautionary principle' years before other politicians did. As she once said:

"...the danger of global warming is as yet unseen but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations."
On November 8th 1989, she addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations about the need for nations to join together in tackling climate change.

It was a groundbreaking speech where she eloquently set out the case for international action and argued for an ongoing role for the IPCC. Indeed, some would argue that the IPCC owes its existence to the support that Thatcher gave it at that time.

Her political understanding of the issue also led to her call for a global response that would bring about real change:

"It is no good squabbling over who is responsible or who should pay. Whole areas of our planet could be subject to drought and starvation if the pattern of rains and monsoons were to change as a result of the destruction of forests and the accumulation of greenhouse gases. The environmental challenge which confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out."


http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/04/09/3732680.htm

Human caused heat trapping carbon dioxide increasing ... yet the denialists clam it's naturally increasing.

Yet from where ... they will not say.

---

That's an excellent OP mechanic.
You've assembled a telling bunch of examples there of the GW conspirators at work with their Goebbelesque nonsense and you've rightly identified the good sense of the common people.

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 6:06am:

That's an excellent OP mechanic. You've assembled a telling bunch of examples there of the GW conspirators at work with their Goebbelesque nonsense and you've rightly identified the good sense of the common people.

Yet it's plagiarized

http://www.pressreader.com/australia/the-daily-telegraph-sydney/20151105/281831462608286/TextView

Three points:

1. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - it doesn't float up like methane does.

2. By FAR the greatest source of Carbon Dioxide are the oceans.

3. Carbon Dioxide is an essential plant food.


The reason behind the fabricated 'Climate Change' hoax is that it should act as a ploy to re-distribute trillions of dollars from the Filthy Rich Capitalist West to the Third World Victimhood 'Developing Nations' by way of helping them finance their own carbon emissions reduction schemes ... with only a tiny percentage of the gifted money actually going towards that purpose.

It's just another scheme to suck more Foreign Aid (ie charity dollars) out of the industrialised wickedly Capitalist West.

Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 6:35am:

Three points: 1. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - it doesn't float up like methane does. 2. By FAR the greatest source of Carbon Dioxide are the oceans. 3. Carbon Dioxide is an essential plant food. The reason behind the fabricated 'Climate Change' hoax is that it should act as a ploy to re-distribute trillions of dollars from the Filthy Rich Capitalist West to the Third World Victimhood 'Developing Nations' by way of helping them finance their own carbon emissions reduction schemes ... with only a tiny percentage of the gifted money actually going towards that purpose. It's just another scheme to suck more Foreign Aid (ie charity dollars) out of the industrialised wickedly Capitalist West.

4. There has been no proven correlation between carbon dioxide and rising temperature levels. Might as well blame cows farting.

Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 6:35am:

Three points: 1. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - it doesn't float up like methane does. 2. By FAR the greatest source of Carbon Dioxide are the oceans. 3. Carbon Dioxide is an essential plant food. The reason behind the fabricated 'Climate Change' hoax is that it should act as a ploy to re-distribute trillions of dollars from the Filthy Rich Capitalist West to the Third World Victimhood 'Developing Nations' by way of helping them finance their own carbon emissions reduction schemes ... with only a tiny percentage of the gifted money actually going towards that purpose. It's just another scheme to suck more Foreign Aid (ie charity dollars) out of the industrialised wickedly Capitalist West.

OMG! So much there that is wrong!

1. CO2 is all through the atmosphere. Gases don’t stratify, don’t form layers.

2. Mankind, not the oceans is the major contributor now to the CO2 in the atmosphere

3. The plant food furphy. CO2 is a plant food yet as the greenhouse effect of CO2 warms the globe the nitrogen intake (and so the protein content) of plants declines. As minimum night time temperatures rise plants take in less CO2.

Reality is a bit more complex than Herbie suggests.

Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 6:35am:

Three points: 1. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - it doesn't float up like methane does. Convection current carry them upwards, and gaseous diffusion would cause mixing with air even without convection. That's because gas molecules are in a state of constant motion, colliding with other molecules, millions of times a second, causing them gradually to diffuse ("spread") in all directions. 2. By FAR the greatest source of Carbon Dioxide are the oceans. Oceans Absorb Less Carbon Dioxide as Marine Systems Change The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea. But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6323 3. Carbon Dioxide is an essential plant food. Crop yeild decreases with higher carbon dioxide levels Elevated CO2 also leads to changes in the chemical composition of plant tissues. Due to increased photosynthetic activity, leaf nonstructural carbohydrates (sugars and starches) per unit leaf area increase on average by 30–40% under FACE elevated CO2 (Ainsworth 2008; Ainsworth & Long 2005). Leaf nitrogen concentrations in plant tissues typically decrease in FACE under elevated CO2, with nitrogen per unit leaf mass decreasing on average by 13% (Ainsworth & Long 2005). This decrease in tissue nitrogen is likely due to several factors: dilution of nitrogen from increased carbohydrate concentrations; decreased uptake of minerals from the soil, as stomatal conductance decreases and plants take up less water (Taub & Wang 2008); and decreases in the rate of assimilation of nitrate into organic compounds (Bloom et al. 2010). Protein concentrations in plant tissues are closely tied to plant nitrogen status. Changes in plant tissue nitrogen are therefore likely to have important effects on species at higher trophic levels. Performance is typically diminished for insect herbivores feeding on plants grown in elevated CO2 (Zvereva & Kozlov 2006). This can lead to increased consumption of plant tissues as herbivores compensate for decreased food quality (Stiling and Cornelissen 2007). Effects on human nutrition are likely as well. In FACE experiments, protein concentrations in grains of wheat, rice and barley, and in potato tubers, are decreased by 5–14% under elevated CO2 (Taub et al. 2008). Crop concentrations of nutritionally important minerals including calcium, magnesium and phosphorus may also be decreased under elevated CO2 (Loladze 2002; Taub & Wang 2008). http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108 The reason behind the fabricated 'Climate Change' hoax is that it should act as a ploy to re-distribute trillions of dollars from the Filthy Rich Capitalist West to the Third World Victimhood 'Developing Nations' by way of helping them finance their own carbon emissions reduction schemes ... with only a tiny percentage of the gifted money actually going towards that purpose. It's just another scheme to suck more Foreign Aid (ie charity dollars) out of the industrialised wickedly Capitalist West.

The cause of the denialism is due to short term greed by the groups with vested interest fooling people.
The majority (97%) of climate scientists know human caused climate change is real.

Do you listen to these scientists or the fossil fuel funded sites?

---

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 6:40am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:35am: Three points: 1. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - it doesn't float up like methane does. 2. By FAR the greatest source of Carbon Dioxide are the oceans. 3. Carbon Dioxide is an essential plant food. The reason behind the fabricated 'Climate Change' hoax is that it should act as a ploy to re-distribute trillions of dollars from the Filthy Rich Capitalist West to the Third World Victimhood 'Developing Nations' by way of helping them finance their own carbon emissions reduction schemes ... with only a tiny percentage of the gifted money actually going towards that purpose. It's just another scheme to suck more Foreign Aid (ie charity dollars) out of the industrialised wickedly Capitalist West. 4. There has been no proven correlation between carbon dioxide and rising temperature levels. Might as well blame cows farting.

97% of climate scientists disagree.

So what's your qualification ... your a daily telegraph reader?

____ wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 6:57am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:40am: Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:35am: Three points: 1. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - it doesn't float up like methane does. 2. By FAR the greatest source of Carbon Dioxide are the oceans. 3. Carbon Dioxide is an essential plant food. The reason behind the fabricated 'Climate Change' hoax is that it should act as a ploy to re-distribute trillions of dollars from the Filthy Rich Capitalist West to the Third World Victimhood 'Developing Nations' by way of helping them finance their own carbon emissions reduction schemes ... with only a tiny percentage of the gifted money actually going towards that purpose. It's just another scheme to suck more Foreign Aid (ie charity dollars) out of the industrialised wickedly Capitalist West. 4. There has been no proven correlation between carbon dioxide and rising temperature levels. Might as well blame cows farting. 97% of climate scientists disagree. So what's your qualification ... your a daily telegraph reader?

Yep, 75 out of 77 of those acceptable to the people running the survey agree...shame about the 3000+ respondents that didn't.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 7:03am:

____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:40am: Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:35am: Three points: 1. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - it doesn't float up like methane does. 2. By FAR the greatest source of Carbon Dioxide are the oceans. 3. Carbon Dioxide is an essential plant food. The reason behind the fabricated 'Climate Change' hoax is that it should act as a ploy to re-distribute trillions of dollars from the Filthy Rich Capitalist West to the Third World Victimhood 'Developing Nations' by way of helping them finance their own carbon emissions reduction schemes ... with only a tiny percentage of the gifted money actually going towards that purpose. It's just another scheme to suck more Foreign Aid (ie charity dollars) out of the industrialised wickedly Capitalist West. 4. There has been no proven correlation between carbon dioxide and rising temperature levels. Might as well blame cows farting. 97% of climate scientists disagree. So what's your qualification ... your a daily telegraph reader? Yep, 75 out of 77 of those acceptable to the people running the survey agree...shame about the 3000+ respondents that didn't.

Climate scientists?

---

Anthropological global warming accounts for a fraction of natural-causes global warming.

Active volcanoes spew more Global Warming 'material' into the atmosphere each day than human emissions in a century.

Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 7:11am:

Active volcanoes spew more Global Warming 'material' into the atmosphere each day than human emissions in a century.

Nope, sorry. We do.

____ wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 7:08am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:03am: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:40am: Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:35am: Three points: 1. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - it doesn't float up like methane does. 2. By FAR the greatest source of Carbon Dioxide are the oceans. 3. Carbon Dioxide is an essential plant food. The reason behind the fabricated 'Climate Change' hoax is that it should act as a ploy to re-distribute trillions of dollars from the Filthy Rich Capitalist West to the Third World Victimhood 'Developing Nations' by way of helping them finance their own carbon emissions reduction schemes ... with only a tiny percentage of the gifted money actually going towards that purpose. It's just another scheme to suck more Foreign Aid (ie charity dollars) out of the industrialised wickedly Capitalist West. 4. There has been no proven correlation between carbon dioxide and rising temperature levels. Might as well blame cows farting. 97% of climate scientists disagree. So what's your qualification ... your a daily telegraph reader? Yep, 75 out of 77 of those acceptable to the people running the survey agree...shame about the 3000+ respondents that didn't. Climate scientists?

Yes, 10,000 surveys sent to climate and earth scientists, 3146 surveys returns, but the "97%" claim is based on 75 out of 77 climate scientists..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 7:16am:

____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:08am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:03am: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:40am: Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:35am: Three points: 1. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - it doesn't float up like methane does. 2. By FAR the greatest source of Carbon Dioxide are the oceans. 3. Carbon Dioxide is an essential plant food. The reason behind the fabricated 'Climate Change' hoax is that it should act as a ploy to re-distribute trillions of dollars from the Filthy Rich Capitalist West to the Third World Victimhood 'Developing Nations' by way of helping them finance their own carbon emissions reduction schemes ... with only a tiny percentage of the gifted money actually going towards that purpose. It's just another scheme to suck more Foreign Aid (ie charity dollars) out of the industrialised wickedly Capitalist West. 4. There has been no proven correlation between carbon dioxide and rising temperature levels. Might as well blame cows farting. 97% of climate scientists disagree. So what's your qualification ... your a daily telegraph reader? Yep, 75 out of 77 of those acceptable to the people running the survey agree...shame about the 3000+ respondents that didn't. Climate scientists? Yes, 10,000 surveys sent to climate and earth scientists, 3146 surveys returns, but the "97%" claim is based on 75 out of 77 climate scientists..

A self selecting sample! Totally worthless!

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 7:20am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:16am: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:08am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:03am: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:40am: Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:35am: Three points: 1. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - it doesn't float up like methane does. 2. By FAR the greatest source of Carbon Dioxide are the oceans. 3. Carbon Dioxide is an essential plant food. The reason behind the fabricated 'Climate Change' hoax is that it should act as a ploy to re-distribute trillions of dollars from the Filthy Rich Capitalist West to the Third World Victimhood 'Developing Nations' by way of helping them finance their own carbon emissions reduction schemes ... with only a tiny percentage of the gifted money actually going towards that purpose. It's just another scheme to suck more Foreign Aid (ie charity dollars) out of the industrialised wickedly Capitalist West. 4. There has been no proven correlation between carbon dioxide and rising temperature levels. Might as well blame cows farting. 97% of climate scientists disagree. So what's your qualification ... your a daily telegraph reader? Yep, 75 out of 77 of those acceptable to the people running the survey agree...shame about the 3000+ respondents that didn't. Climate scientists? Yes, 10,000 surveys sent to climate and earth scientists, 3146 surveys returns, but the "97%" claim is based on 75 out of 77 climate scientists.. A self selecting sample! Totally worthless!

Exactly.

FAR more threatening to the future health of Western nations than some trumped-up 'Climate Change' hysteria are the mob that you 'Green' - and 'Jovial Monk' belong to.

These are the people who for years have been supporting the immigration groundwork for the eventual decline and death of the West's Judaeo-Christian civilisation.

These are the Reds-under-the-bed who have been trying every which way to hobble the West - with Muslim immigration being just one of their strategies for fracturing and disharmonising Western societies of their social cohesion and identity.

link

No wonder these were the first people that Hitler winkled out of the woodwork long before he turned his attention to the Jews.

White ants. Traitors. One Worlders.

Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 7:34am:

FAR more threatening to the future health of Western nations than some trumped-up 'Climate Change' hysteria are the mob that you 'Green' - and 'Jovial Monk' belong to. These are the people who for years have been supporting the immigration groundwork for the eventual decline and death of the West's Judaeo-Christian civilisation. These are the Reds-under-the-bed who have been trying every which way to hobble the West - with Muslim immigration being just one of their strategies for fracturing and disharmonising Western societies of their social cohesion and identity. link No wonder these were the first people that Hitler winkled out of the woodwork long before he turned his attention to the Jews. White ants. Traitors. One Worlders.

You do go on, don’t you Herbie, go on spouting your racism and xenophobia.

Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 7:11am:

Anthropological global warming accounts for a fraction of natural-causes global warming. Active volcanoes spew more Global Warming 'material' into the atmosphere each day than human emissions in a century.

Your opinion is based on what?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 7:16am:

____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:08am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:03am: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:40am: Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:35am: Three points: 1. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - it doesn't float up like methane does. 2. By FAR the greatest source of Carbon Dioxide are the oceans. 3. Carbon Dioxide is an essential plant food. The reason behind the fabricated 'Climate Change' hoax is that it should act as a ploy to re-distribute trillions of dollars from the Filthy Rich Capitalist West to the Third World Victimhood 'Developing Nations' by way of helping them finance their own carbon emissions reduction schemes ... with only a tiny percentage of the gifted money actually going towards that purpose. It's just another scheme to suck more Foreign Aid (ie charity dollars) out of the industrialised wickedly Capitalist West. 4. There has been no proven correlation between carbon dioxide and rising temperature levels. Might as well blame cows farting. 97% of climate scientists disagree. So what's your qualification ... your a daily telegraph reader? Yep, 75 out of 77 of those acceptable to the people running the survey agree...shame about the 3000+ respondents that didn't. Climate scientists? Yes, 10,000 surveys sent to climate and earth scientists, 3146 surveys returns, but the "97%" claim is based on 75 out of 77 climate scientists..

So the figure is likely higher.

99%?

____ wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 7:44am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:16am: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:08am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:03am: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:40am: Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:35am: Three points: 1. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - it doesn't float up like methane does. 2. By FAR the greatest source of Carbon Dioxide are the oceans. 3. Carbon Dioxide is an essential plant food. The reason behind the fabricated 'Climate Change' hoax is that it should act as a ploy to re-distribute trillions of dollars from the Filthy Rich Capitalist West to the Third World Victimhood 'Developing Nations' by way of helping them finance their own carbon emissions reduction schemes ... with only a tiny percentage of the gifted money actually going towards that purpose. It's just another scheme to suck more Foreign Aid (ie charity dollars) out of the industrialised wickedly Capitalist West. 4. There has been no proven correlation between carbon dioxide and rising temperature levels. Might as well blame cows farting. 97% of climate scientists disagree. So what's your qualification ... your a daily telegraph reader? Yep, 75 out of 77 of those acceptable to the people running the survey agree...shame about the 3000+ respondents that didn't. Climate scientists? Yes, 10,000 surveys sent to climate and earth scientists, 3146 surveys returns, but the "97%" claim is based on 75 out of 77 climate scientists.. So the figure is likely higher. 99%?

Nope, a lot lower, closer to 3%.

____ wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 5:53am:

How Margaret Thatcher led the way on climate change Nearly two decades before Al Gore raised awareness of climate change, Margaret Thatcher was calling for an international scientific body to investigate the issue. Back in 1988, however, it was a different politician who put the science of climate change firmly on the global agenda. Unbeknownst to many, that person was Margaret Thatcher. As a Fellow of the Royal Society, Britain's national science academy, she presented a series of high profile speeches on the topic of climate change. Armed with a degree in chemistry from Oxford, her scientific expertise enabled her to speak from a position of strength and knowledge about climate-related issues. She used that knowledge to act as a champion for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and personally opened the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (the UK's foremost climate change research centre). What many people admired about Margaret Thatcher was her ability to embrace the potential of science to guide and lead the way on environmental issues. What marked her out even more is that she embraced the 'precautionary principle' years before other politicians did. As she once said: "...the danger of global warming is as yet unseen but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations." On November 8th 1989, she addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations about the need for nations to join together in tackling climate change. It was a groundbreaking speech where she eloquently set out the case for international action and argued for an ongoing role for the IPCC. Indeed, some would argue that the IPCC owes its existence to the support that Thatcher gave it at that time. Her political understanding of the issue also led to her call for a global response that would bring about real change: "It is no good squabbling over who is responsible or who should pay. Whole areas of our planet could be subject to drought and starvation if the pattern of rains and monsoons were to change as a result of the destruction of forests and the accumulation of greenhouse gases. The environmental challenge which confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out." http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/04/09/3732680.htm

WHICH just goes to show that the GW movement was always politically motivated into fooling the sheeple to pay more tax...

Maggie said to her scientists - "if you can prove Man Made Global warming, i'll shower you in Millions of Dollars"

and thus - The scientist the Scientist became Believers and started the Great GW lie...  >:(

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 7:55am:

____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:44am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:16am: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:08am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 7:03am: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:40am: Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 6:35am: Three points: 1. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air - it doesn't float up like methane does. 2. By FAR the greatest source of Carbon Dioxide are the oceans. 3. Carbon Dioxide is an essential plant food. The reason behind the fabricated 'Climate Change' hoax is that it should act as a ploy to re-distribute trillions of dollars from the Filthy Rich Capitalist West to the Third World Victimhood 'Developing Nations' by way of helping them finance their own carbon emissions reduction schemes ... with only a tiny percentage of the gifted money actually going towards that purpose. It's just another scheme to suck more Foreign Aid (ie charity dollars) out of the industrialised wickedly Capitalist West. 4. There has been no proven correlation between carbon dioxide and rising temperature levels. Might as well blame cows farting. 97% of climate scientists disagree. So what's your qualification ... your a daily telegraph reader? Yep, 75 out of 77 of those acceptable to the people running the survey agree...shame about the 3000+ respondents that didn't. Climate scientists? Yes, 10,000 surveys sent to climate and earth scientists, 3146 surveys returns, but the "97%" claim is based on 75 out of 77 climate scientists.. So the figure is likely higher. 99%? Nope, a lot lower, closer to 3%.

Oh well, in the real world it's 97%.

Greens...

why don't you quote Maggie Thatcher when she saw that her early work was taken over by liars and scare mongers ???

Quote:

In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views. She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the "doomsters", she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind. In other words, long before it became fashionable, Lady Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology. Alas, what she set in train earlier continues to exercise its baleful influence to this day. But the fact that she became one of the first and most prominent of "climate sceptics" has been almost entirely buried from view.

____ wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 5:51am:

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years

How big was email in 1981? The email was written in 2014. What the Garudian can't even get dates right?

From the email-

'Whatever their public stance, internally they make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations. Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question - legitimately, in my opinion - the validity of some of the science.'

'Having spent twenty years working for Exxon and ten working for Mobil, I know that much of that ethical behavior comes from a business calculation that it is cheaper in the long run to be ethical than unethical. '

' On October 8, 2014, the Director received the following reply (reprinted with permission) from Lenny Bernstein'

https://www.ohio.edu/appliedethics/iape-speakers-and-events.cfm

The garudian didn't get much right, did it?

lee wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 11:56am:

____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 5:51am: Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years How big was email in 1981? The email was written in 2014. What the Garudian can't even get dates right? From the email- 'Whatever their public stance, internally they make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations. Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question - legitimately, in my opinion - the validity of some of the science.' 'Having spent twenty years working for Exxon and ten working for Mobil, I know that much of that ethical behavior comes from a business calculation that it is cheaper in the long run to be ethical than unethical. ' ' On October 8, 2014, the Director received the following reply (reprinted with permission) from Lenny Bernstein' https://www.ohio.edu/appliedethics/iape-speakers-and-events.cfm The garudian didn't get much right, did it?

Well no, not in reality..but the Guardian DID get it 'right' from the point of view of 'idiotic panicky alarmism '

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 11:45am:

Greens... why don't you quote Maggie Thatcher when she saw that her early work was taken over by liars and scare mongers ???

No ideal what you're on about.
Are you talking about someone else's twist on history?

____ wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 3:50pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 11:45am: Greens... why don't you quote Maggie Thatcher when she saw that her early work was taken over by liars and scare mongers ??? No ideal what you're on about. Are you talking about someone else's twist on history?

Perhaps the mechanic is talking about the idiot warmists twist on history??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 3:58pm:

____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 3:50pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 11:45am: Greens... why don't you quote Maggie Thatcher when she saw that her early work was taken over by liars and scare mongers ??? No ideal what you're on about. Are you talking about someone else's twist on history? Perhaps the mechanic is talking about the idiot warmists twist on history??

When did abuse become your default position. There was a time when I respected your opinions.

____ wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 4:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 3:58pm: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 3:50pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 11:45am: Greens... why don't you quote Maggie Thatcher when she saw that her early work was taken over by liars and scare mongers ??? No ideal what you're on about. Are you talking about someone else's twist on history? Perhaps the mechanic is talking about the idiot warmists twist on history?? When did abuse become your default position. There was a time when I respected your opinions.

When it became obvious that the pro-AGW people were WRONG..
Sorry, but the idea that 'human-caused global warming exists' is becoming more and more idiotic..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 4:13pm:

____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 4:07pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 3:58pm: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 3:50pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 11:45am: Greens... why don't you quote Maggie Thatcher when she saw that her early work was taken over by liars and scare mongers ??? No ideal what you're on about. Are you talking about someone else's twist on history? Perhaps the mechanic is talking about the idiot warmists twist on history?? When did abuse become your default position. There was a time when I respected your opinions. When it became obvious that the pro-AGW people were WRONG.. Sorry, but the idea that 'human-caused global warming exists' is becoming more and more idiotic..

So human activity has no effect in your mind.

Would a human caused nuclear war change the global climate?

____ wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 4:13pm: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 4:07pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 3:58pm: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 3:50pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 11:45am: Greens... why don't you quote Maggie Thatcher when she saw that her early work was taken over by liars and scare mongers ??? No ideal what you're on about. Are you talking about someone else's twist on history? Perhaps the mechanic is talking about the idiot warmists twist on history?? When did abuse become your default position. There was a time when I respected your opinions. When it became obvious that the pro-AGW people were WRONG.. Sorry, but the idea that 'human-caused global warming exists' is becoming more and more idiotic.. So human activity has no effect in your mind. Would a human caused nuclear war change the global climate?

gizmo is from planet accountant: he thinks nobody can read  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 5:30pm:

____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 4:15pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 4:13pm: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 4:07pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 3:58pm: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 3:50pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 11:45am: Greens... why don't you quote Maggie Thatcher when she saw that her early work was taken over by liars and scare mongers ??? No ideal what you're on about. Are you talking about someone else's twist on history? Perhaps the mechanic is talking about the idiot warmists twist on history?? When did abuse become your default position. There was a time when I respected your opinions. When it became obvious that the pro-AGW people were WRONG.. Sorry, but the idea that 'human-caused global warming exists' is becoming more and more idiotic.. So human activity has no effect in your mind. Would a human caused nuclear war change the global climate? gizmo is from planet accountant: he thinks nobody can read  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

I'm from Planet Reality : I think everyone CAN read..which means they can understand that AWG is complete bullshit...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 4:13pm:

____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 4:07pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 3:58pm: ____ wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 3:50pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 11:45am: Greens... why don't you quote Maggie Thatcher when she saw that her early work was taken over by liars and scare mongers ??? No ideal what you're on about. Are you talking about someone else's twist on history? Perhaps the mechanic is talking about the idiot warmists twist on history?? When did abuse become your default position. There was a time when I respected your opinions. When it became obvious that the pro-AGW people were WRONG.. Sorry, but the idea that 'human-caused global warming exists' is becoming more and more idiotic..

Yet we keep on pumping GHGs into the atmosphere, only more ons and ideologues insist that has no effect. Sorry, GHGs cause a greenhouse effect and now even the Antarctic is starting to lose ice to the sea.

____ wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 3:50pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 11:45am: Greens... why don't you quote Maggie Thatcher when she saw that her early work was taken over by liars and scare mongers ??? No ideal what you're on about. Are you talking about someone else's twist on history?

no, of course not... you only see what you want to see... the things that suit your lies..


President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 11:48am:

Quote: In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views. She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the "doomsters", she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind. In other words, long before it became fashionable, Lady Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology. Alas, what she set in train earlier continues to exercise its baleful influence to this day. But the fact that she became one of the first and most prominent of "climate sceptics" has been almost entirely buried from view.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 7^th, 2015 at 2:20am:

and now even the Antarctic is starting to lose ice to the sea.

Net ice gain.

The Antarctic is losing more and more ice to the sea. That is the important bit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html

Exxon–Mobil under investigation for lies to investors, public about AGW dangers.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 8^th, 2015 at 9:20am:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html Exxon–Mobil under investigation for lies to investors, public about AGW dangers.

Most Aussies are sheep dogs and can smell snake oil from miles away.

Some Aussies are unfortunately sheep and believe anything.

And then some Aussies who are sheeple become wolves to con more Aussies into believing the Anthropogenic Global Warming religion.


Quote:

In Exxon War, Bamboozled by Greenies This fantasy is summed up in the ICN series by Penn State climatologist Michael Mann,who is quoted as saying, “All it would’ve taken is for one prominent fossil fuel CEO to know this was about more than just shareholder profits.” But wait, hasn’t this experiment been run? In the early 2000s, BP CEO John Brownebegan sounding a climate alarm. Ron Oxburgh, the chairman of Shell, gave a speech warning of planetary doom. In 2007, Alcoa, GE, Duke Energy, Ford, DuPont and others endorsed a U.S. cap-and-trade bill. All this failed to move the ball in two successive congresses, though, because Senate Democrats (the second time joined by President Obama) didn’t want to be blamed for jacking up gasoline prices. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 8^th, 2015 at 9:19am:

The Antarctic is losing more and more ice to the sea. That is the important bit.

You need more education obviously, because what part of "something else is contributing to sea level rise, but what", dont you understand?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 8^th, 2015 at 9:20am:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new... Exxon–Mobil under investigation for lies to investors, public about AGW dangers.

From the article -

'In the 1950s and ’60s, tobacco companies financed internal research showing tobacco to be harmful and addictive, but mounted a public campaign that said otherwise and helped fund scientific research later shown to be dubious. In 2006, the companies were found guilty of “a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public.”

The history at Exxon Mobil appears to differ, in that the company published extensive research over decades that largely lined up with mainstream climatology. Thus, any potential fraud prosecution might depend on exactly how big a role company executives can be shown to have played in directing campaigns of climate denial, usually by libertarian-leaning political groups.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html

Fear of heap big warmie, heap big fishing expedition, but warmie not hot, heap big warmie not accelerating as posited. ;D ;D

survey shows Aussies are waking up to Global Warmi

Yep inadvertently correct.

Every day you wake up it is still there.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 8^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

Yep inadvertently correct. Every day you wake up it is still there.

We are coming out of an ice age and want it to stop?

Dnarever wrote on Nov 8^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

survey shows Aussies are waking up to Global Warmi Yep inadvertently correct. Every day you wake up it is still there.

Yes the leftards and greens are still there.

Not a single climate model is available anywhere in the world today that predicts static or declining global temperatures as atmospheric CO2 levels increase....

funny that isnt it ladies and gentlemen - not one model

Every single climate model predicts a warming trend under these rising CO2 conditions.

funny that isnt it ladies and gentlemen

It Must be a very elaborate hoax and extensive corruption across ALL countries, every single Scientific institution and University on the planet AND now, every single corporation which includes the fossil fuel and mining sectors

https://static.squarespace.com/static/522b7b7ee4b00c944324f02a/5244b361e4b004a32db3bdce/5244b368e4b004a32db3d7ca/1340897161607/1000w/ape%20thinking%20.jpeg

....not one smacking model...amazing isnt ladies and gentlemen

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 9:13am:

Not a single climate model is available anywhere in the world today that predicts static or declining global temperatures as atmospheric CO2 levels increase.... funny that isnt it ladies and gentlemen - not one model Every single climate model predicts a warming trend under these rising CO2 conditions. funny that isnt it ladies and gentlemen It Must be a very elaborate hoax and extensive corruption across ALL countries, every single Scientific institution and University on the planet AND now, every single corporation which includes the fossil fuel and mining sectors https://static.squarespace.com/static/522b7b7ee4b00c944324f02a/5244b361e4b004a32db3bdce/5244b368e4b004a32db3d7ca/1340897161607/1000w/ape%20thinking%20.jpeg ....not one smacking model...amazing isnt ladies and gentlemen

And yet, the empirical data shows exactly that..

Chump, you should now apologise, IN WRITING to the forum members and self ban for 72 hours.

gizmo has a long list of apologies to make in writing and a protracted self banishment period to fulfill ladies and gentlemen

http://www.gopusa.com/news/files/2015/04/chimp_suit.jpg

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 9:54am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 9:13am: Not a single climate model is available anywhere in the world today that predicts static or declining global temperatures as atmospheric CO2 levels increase.... funny that isnt it ladies and gentlemen - not one model Every single climate model predicts a warming trend under these rising CO2 conditions. funny that isnt it ladies and gentlemen It Must be a very elaborate hoax and extensive corruption across ALL countries, every single Scientific institution and University on the planet AND now, every single corporation which includes the fossil fuel and mining sectors https://static.squarespace.com/static/522b7b7ee4b00c944324f02a/5244b361e4b004a32db3bdce/5244b368e4b004a32db3d7ca/1340897161607/1000w/ape%20thinking%20.jpeg ....not one smacking model...amazing isnt ladies and gentlemen And yet, the empirical data shows exactly that.. Chump, you should now apologise, IN WRITING to the forum members and self ban for 72 hours.

Even with all their fraudulant temperature data manipulation. They just cant seem to cool the past and warm the present fast enough for fear of being too obvious.

Give it time. They'll get there with every adjustment.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 10:09am:

gizmo has a long list of apologies to make in writing and a protracted self banishment period to fulfill ladies and gentlemen http://www.gopusa.com/news/files/2015/04/chimp_suit.jpg

And yet, you have just hit the point of doing so yourself...

I have no reason to apologise and self ban, since nothing I've said was 'incorrect' or a lie..unlike you..

Hh
gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 2:22pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 10:09am: gizmo has a long list of apologies to make in writing and a protracted self banishment period to fulfill ladies and gentlemen http://www.gopusa.com/news/files/2015/04/chimp_suit.jpg And yet, you have just hit the point of doing so yourself... I have no reason to apologise and self ban, since nothing I've said was 'incorrect' or a lie..unlike you..

You have just added yet another apology and self ban by deceiving the good folk of ozpolitic for claiming not having deceived them.

Is there anything or anyone in his world that you do not spiritually detest?

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 9:54am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 9:13am: Not a single climate model is available anywhere in the world today that predicts static or declining global temperatures as atmospheric CO2 levels increase.... funny that isnt it ladies and gentlemen - not one model Every single climate model predicts a warming trend under these rising CO2 conditions. funny that isnt it ladies and gentlemen It Must be a very elaborate hoax and extensive corruption across ALL countries, every single Scientific institution and University on the planet AND now, every single corporation which includes the fossil fuel and mining sectors https://static.squarespace.com/static/522b7b7ee4b00c944324f02a/5244b361e4b004a32db3bdce/5244b368e4b004a32db3d7ca/1340897161607/1000w/ape%20thinking%20.jpeg ....not one smacking model...amazing isnt ladies and gentlemen And yet, the empirical data shows exactly that.. Chump, you should now apologise, IN WRITING to the forum members and self ban for 72 hours. Even with all their fraudulant temperature data manipulation. They just cant seem to cool the past and warm the present fast enough for fear of being too obvious. Give it time. They'll get there with every adjustment.

Climate models have a basis in theory and empiricism.

Where is the climate model that predicts static or declining temperatures as CO2 concentration rises in the earths amosphere?

Describe the theory that it is based upon.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 9:13am:

Not a single climate model is available anywhere in the world today that predicts static or declining global temperatures as atmospheric CO2 levels increase.... funny that isnt it ladies and gentlemen - not one model Every single climate model predicts a warming trend under these rising CO2 conditions. funny that isnt it ladies and gentlemen It Must be a very elaborate hoax and extensive corruption across ALL countries, every single Scientific institution and University on the planet AND now, every single corporation which includes the fossil fuel and mining sectors https://static.squarespace.com/static/522b7b7ee4b00c944324f02a/5244b361e4b004a32db3bdce/5244b368e4b004a32db3d7ca/1340897161607/1000w/ape%20thinking%20.jpeg ....not one smacking model...amazing isnt ladies and gentlemen

All those models have been proven wrong by observation.

Now self ban for 24 hours hairy arse you're a liar!!!

http://i68.tinypic.com/2rggx39.png


Quote:

Figure 8. Orange region: Models’ projections of global warming, January 2005 to November 2013, on the interval 1.33 [1.0, 2.33] Cº/century (from IPCC, 2013, fig. 11.25a). The second draft’s mid-range estimate is the final draft’s high-end estimate; the former low-end estimate is now the central estimate. Thick red trend-line: central projection of 0.12 K warming over the 107-month period, equivalent to 1.33 Cº/century. Gray curve and trend-line: monthly CO2 concentration anomalies (NOAA, 2013) and 18 μatm (198 μatm/century) trend, which caused 0.24 W m–2 forcing (or 0.35 W m–2 including other anthropogenic forcings). Of the 0.21 Cº warming projected to arise from this forcing, almost half was previously committed. Thick bright blue trend-line: Global cooling of 0.03 Cº (0.30 Cº/century: mean of five datasets). Over the period, the models over-predicted global warming by 0.15 Cº (1.6 Cº/century). Read all here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 4:53pm:

Climate models have a basis in theory and empiricism. Where is the climate model that predicts static or declining temperatures as CO2 concentration rises in the earths amosphere? Describe the theory that it is based upon.

You talk a lot of sh!t banana breath.

There has been hiatus in global warming for the last 18 years, yet more than a third of man's global emissions of CO2 have gone up into the atmosphere since 1998.

Where is the correlation between CO2 and Temperature.

There is none, CO2 rises when temperature rises not the other way around.

http://i67.tinypic.com/2ppwxz4.png http://i66.tinypic.com/zupd1v.png

Why should we be taxed on information that is wrong..!

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 4:53pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 2:10pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 9:54am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 9:13am: Not a single climate model is available anywhere in the world today that predicts static or declining global temperatures as atmospheric CO2 levels increase.... funny that isnt it ladies and gentlemen - not one model Every single climate model predicts a warming trend under these rising CO2 conditions. funny that isnt it ladies and gentlemen It Must be a very elaborate hoax and extensive corruption across ALL countries, every single Scientific institution and University on the planet AND now, every single corporation which includes the fossil fuel and mining sectors https://static.squarespace.com/static/522b7b7ee4b00c944324f02a/5244b361e4b004a32db3bdce/5244b368e4b004a32db3d7ca/1340897161607/1000w/ape%20thinking%20.jpeg ....not one smacking model...amazing isnt ladies and gentlemen And yet, the empirical data shows exactly that.. Chump, you should now apologise, IN WRITING to the forum members and self ban for 72 hours. Even with all their fraudulant temperature data manipulation. They just cant seem to cool the past and warm the present fast enough for fear of being too obvious. Give it time. They'll get there with every adjustment. Climate models have a basis in theory and empiricism. Where is the climate model that predicts static or declining temperatures as CO2 concentration rises in the earths amosphere? Describe the theory that it is based upon.

That is the same as telling someone in court to prove themselves innocent.

You twats have the models that dont get anything right. It is you who needs to prove they are right. Mother nature is not going to help you.

Not a single climate model has been verified. What were the initial conditions for each of the climate models?

The level of non warming is even worse when you factor in the heat island effect, in fact if you took out the heat island effect and the data manipulation I'd be surprised if you could find any real warming at all.  ;D

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 7:42pm:

The level of non warming is even worse when you factor in the heat island effect, in fact if you took out the heat island effect and the data manipulation I'd be surprised if you could find any real warming at all.  ;D

care to quantify some of your lunacy you freak maggot clown puppet?

if you cannot put numbers to your derangements, then I believe a written apology is in order followed by self banishment for 48 hours

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/57/84/a3/5784a3e8c82ffdc1da395f1ded31eab6.jpg

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 7:42pm:

The level of non warming is even worse when you factor in the heat island effect, in fact if you took out the heat island effect and the data manipulation I'd be surprised if you could find any real warming at all.  ;D

unquantified argument = innocentbystanders argument  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 5:40pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 4:53pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 2:10pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 9:54am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 9:13am: Not a single climate model is available anywhere in the world today that predicts static or declining global temperatures as atmospheric CO2 levels increase.... funny that isnt it ladies and gentlemen - not one model Every single climate model predicts a warming trend under these rising CO2 conditions. funny that isnt it ladies and gentlemen It Must be a very elaborate hoax and extensive corruption across ALL countries, every single Scientific institution and University on the planet AND now, every single corporation which includes the fossil fuel and mining sectors https://static.squarespace.com/static/522b7b7ee4b00c944324f02a/5244b361e4b004a32db3bdce/5244b368e4b004a32db3d7ca/1340897161607/1000w/ape%20thinking%20.jpeg ....not one smacking model...amazing isnt ladies and gentlemen And yet, the empirical data shows exactly that.. Chump, you should now apologise, IN WRITING to the forum members and self ban for 72 hours. Even with all their fraudulant temperature data manipulation. They just cant seem to cool the past and warm the present fast enough for fear of being too obvious. Give it time. They'll get there with every adjustment. Climate models have a basis in theory and empiricism. Where is the climate model that predicts static or declining temperatures as CO2 concentration rises in the earths amosphere? Describe the theory that it is based upon. That is the same as telling someone in court to prove themselves innocent. You twats have the models that dont get anything right. It is you who needs to prove they are right. Mother nature is not going to help you.

i'm sorry, wtf  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Ajax wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 4:53pm: Climate models have a basis in theory and empiricism. Where is the climate model that predicts static or declining temperatures as CO2 concentration rises in the earths amosphere? Describe the theory that it is based upon. You talk a lot of sh!t banana breath. There has been hiatus in global warming for the last 18 years, yet more than a third of man's global emissions of CO2 have gone up into the atmosphere since 1998. Where is the correlation between CO2 and Temperature. There is none, CO2 rises when temperature rises not the other way around. http://i67.tinypic.com/2ppwxz4.png http://i66.tinypic.com/zupd1v.png Why should we be taxed on information that is wrong..!

batman with a crack-pipe has never heard of the null-hypothesis... maybe we should go back 5 years and start/COPY AND PASTE this conversation again!  ;D ;D

Oh no.....Batman doesnt want to pay tax - poor Batman. He loves paying tax for fossil fuel and mining corporation rebates and subsidies, and wars, and to bail out banks, and to fund privatisation scams and stock markets circuses. Batman has no issues there ladies and gentlemen

But Batman becomes a sooky sooky la la when paying certain taxes doesnt he.

poor sooky sooky Batman

https://ikttvs.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/batman-crying.gif

....oh please, don't make me pay for a new tax

https://ikttvs.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/batman-crying.gif

...please dont do it. I can afford to pay $700 of tax to the mining and fossil fuel corporations each year, but please dont make me pay $95 for a carbon tax - please dont it....

Poor Poor Sooky sooky Batman


https://ikttvs.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/batman-crying.gif

lee wrote on Nov 8^th, 2015 at 10:11pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 9:42pm: Yep inadvertently correct. Every day you wake up it is still there. We are coming out of an ice age and want it to stop?

Make up your mind. I though you guys were saying that an Ice Age is about to start - next winter or something.

John_Taverner wrote on Nov 16^th, 2015 at 8:51am:

lee wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 10:11pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 9:42pm: Yep inadvertently correct. Every day you wake up it is still there. We are coming out of an ice age and want it to stop? Make up your mind. I though you guys were saying that an Ice Age is about to start - next winter or something.

Please provide the exact quote where i said that. you know- time, place, thread.

lee wrote on Nov 16^th, 2015 at 10:19am:

John_Taverner wrote on Nov 16th, 2015 at 8:51am: lee wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 10:11pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 9:42pm: Yep inadvertently correct. Every day you wake up it is still there. We are coming out of an ice age and want it to stop? Make up your mind. I though you guys were saying that an Ice Age is about to start - next winter or something. Please provide the exact quote where i said that. you know- time, place, thread.

Maybe it was a different climate science denier clown.  Doctor Sircus I think, Sir Bobby's best friend. That's why I said "you guys" as opposed to you alone.

My apologies. It was a different clown.

John_Taverner wrote on Nov 16^th, 2015 at 2:43pm:

lee wrote on Nov 16th, 2015 at 10:19am: John_Taverner wrote on Nov 16th, 2015 at 8:51am: lee wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 10:11pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 9:42pm: Yep inadvertently correct. Every day you wake up it is still there. We are coming out of an ice age and want it to stop? Make up your mind. I though you guys were saying that an Ice Age is about to start - next winter or something. Please provide the exact quote where i said that. you know- time, place, thread. Maybe it was a different climate science denier clown.  Doctor Sircus I think, Sir Bobby's best friend. That's why I said "you guys" as opposed to you alone. My apologies. It was a different clown.

lee has multiple 'guys' in his mouth ...., i mean head  :D :D :D :D :D