Frank wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2019 at 6:09pm:

Air contains 0.04 per cent carbon dioxide. We add carbon compounds to our bodies from food and drinks and exhale carbon dioxide. The human breath contains at least 4 per cent carbon dioxide. Our bodies contain carbon compounds. If we were so passionately concerned about our carbon footprint, then the best thing to do is to expire.

Gnads wrote on Nov 24^th, 2019 at 6:53am:

Good post Frank. And it would be good too if those of the Church of Climate Change took seriously this line - & followed through post haste. Quote: If we were so passionately concerned about our carbon footprint, then the best thing to do is to expire.

Ajax wrote on Nov 24^th, 2019 at 2:51pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 24th, 2019 at 2:43pm: Ajax wrote on Nov 24th, 2019 at 2:39pm: freediver wrote on Nov 24th, 2019 at 2:29pm: So what do you think of this? Quote: If we were so passionately concerned about our carbon footprint, then the best thing to do is to expire. Hysterical, or climate skeptic common sense? Better than that word "catastrophic" being bandied by the oligarchy owned media. Catastrophic conditions......... :D Is this the first time or the last. Hysteria is part of the alarmists camp, make no mistake about that...... 8-) So your hysteria is all relative? .............. ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2sAkRnwbAw

Ur....joking aren't ya....???

WELL

We are not the ones saying SIT DOWN SHUT UP cause the science is settled.

We're not the ones calling you guys heretics because of this new found religion of yours.

We are not the ones that say science is by consensus.

Talk about fanatics in the dictionary it will be a picture of a climate change extremist.

Seriously...you're joking right...........  ;D :D ;) :)

The Joker................ :-*

Quote:

We are not the ones saying SIT DOWN SHUT UP cause the science is settled.

Are you in primary school? Or just being hysterical again?

lee wrote on Nov 24^th, 2019 at 4:10pm:

"With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." John von Neumann

;D No 2nd prizes FD

You're not happy unless your running your own show ey?

Couldn't stay in the other thread to waffle on with your mantra of the Church of Climate Change.

You're really just a lefty at heart.  ::)

I think this thread will outlive the other one. Mindless hysterics is all we seem to get from climate skeptics these days.

Why would you expect people to take your mindless hysterics seriously?

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2019 at 5:18pm:

lee wrote on Nov 24th, 2019 at 4:10pm: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." John von Neumann

Yes petal was there something you wanted to know?

Making a perfectly acceptable statement is hardly hysterical. More like historical.

Perhaps you have your words mixed up. ;)

Perhaps you don't know the context?

It means making models with too many parameters will give too many answers, depending on the variation. ;)

"By this he meant that one should not be impressed when a complex model fits a data set well. With enough parameters, you can fit any data set."

https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/06/21/how-to-fit-an-elephant/

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2019 at 5:39pm:

I think this thread will outlive the other one. Mindless hysterics is all we seem to get from climate skeptics these days. Why would you expect people to take your mindless hysterics seriously?

And anyone yours?

Planet Kryton is doomed!
Only the Chosen Ones will get a ticket on the NASA life-boat to Mars.

Quote:

Making a perfectly acceptable statement is hardly hysterical. More like historical.

So tell us about your elephant.

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2019 at 6:11pm:

So tell us about your elephant.

Not my elephant petal. von Neumanns. ;)

lee wrote on Nov 24^th, 2019 at 6:13pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 24th, 2019 at 6:11pm: So tell us about your elephant. Not my elephant petal. von Neumanns. ;)

Do you understand what he was saying, or did you just like the bit about the elephant?

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2019 at 7:53pm:

Do you understand what he was saying, or did you just like the bit about the elephant?

No petal.I understand it perfectly. ;)

You? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I haven't given it any thought. Can you explain what it means?

The main greenhouse gas is water vapour. It is the only gas in air that can evaporate, humidify and condense into clouds that precipitate rain, hail and snow. These processes involve a transfer of energy, and water vapour makes the atmosphere behave like a giant airconditioner. Carbon dioxide is a non-condensable atmospheric gas like nitrogen and oxygen. Water vapour in air varies depending on temperature and location from five times the atmospheric carbon dioxide content in deserts to more than 100 times in the tropics. Water is 12 times more effective than carbon dioxide with respect to all incoming and outgoing radiation.
Earth is unevenly heated. Our spinning oblate globe is influenced by two fluids of different composition and behaviour moving chaotically against each other over the irregular solid surface of the planet. Oceans hold most of the planet’s surface heat, not the atmosphere. Processes that occur during sunlight do not occur at night due to the prime driver of our planet’s surface temperature: the sun.
Carbon dioxide is plant food. It is neither a pollutant nor a toxin. Without carbon dioxide, all life on Earth would die. Plants convert carbon dioxide, water and sunlight during photosynthesis into sugars, cellulose, fruit, vegetables and grains, which animal life uses as food. Marine organisms also take up and use carbon dioxide. Plants need almost three times today’s carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere to thrive. For decades horticulturalists have pumped carbon dioxide into glasshouses to increase yields. The fossil record shows that a thriving and diversification of plant and animal life occurs every time the atmosphere had a very high carbon dioxide content. In the past, warming has never been a threat to life on Earth. Why should it be now? When there is a low atmospheric carbon dioxide content, especially during very cold times, life struggles.
For the past 500 million years, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content has been decreasing and if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die. This carbon dioxide has been removed into the oceans and is sequestered into coral, shells, limey sediments and muds and on the land into coals, muds, soils and vegetation.

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2019 at 8:03pm:

I haven't given it any thought. Can you explain what it means?

Since you have shown no sign of understanding the simple explanation offered, it is obviously beyond you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You really are hysterical aren't you. ;)

speaking of hysterics

---

She's a Time Lord.

Undoubtedly the best thing we can do to solve this problem is to develop technologies which make coal and fossil fuels more expensive than our new technologies

That shouldn't be too far into the future

As per usual there are two types of people

The people bounce out of bed full of positive emotion keen to get on with solving a problem and up for the challenge
They hit the books
They get their degree's in the hard sciences
they might work on how to store energy in batteries or a new solar panel
They are hunting for a solution
They are the predators
They feel awesome
They are strong powerful and influential

Then there are other people who bounce out of bed full of negative emotions
People like Greta
They are startled and flustered
Their brains are a world wind of negative emotions
They couldn't read a book if they tried
They couldn't solve a problem if they tried which they won't
They try to soothed they're emotions by waving placards and demonstrating their virtue to community
They have the victim mentality
They see themselves as prey animals being preyed upon buy carbon dioxide
They feel terrible
They are weak frightened and anxious

As per usual the noble competent people in category 1
Will solve the problem
And the hand ringing Nancy's in category 2
Will  take the credit ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

Mike O’Connor-October 21, 2019 8:00pm There are times when I feel like a stranger in my own country, the urge to scream in frustration all but overwhelming. My problem is that I’m not a believer. I don’t believe in man-made climate change and shake my head in bemusement at the people who are presently running through the streets screaming “climate emergency.” We now live in an age in which if something is said often enough by self-interested parties then it must be true. Anyone who attempts to voice a contrary view is howled down and branded a “denier.” No one dares to be different. Such is the desperate need to be accepted and on-trend that we will happily go along with any point of view which will be favourably viewed by social media. The intellectual laziness of the masses is as sad as it is tragic. We have become a nation of unthinking morons which unquestioningly accepts the views of self-anointed “experts” without wondering if their shouted declarations that the end is nigh might just be driven by the urgent need to justify their existence and get their hands on another research grant. To be a climate denier is to suffer eternal damnation but it is perfectly fine to be a democracy denier as witnessed by the fact that there are large numbers of very noisy people who still can’t accept that Donald Trump is President of the United States and Scott Morrison Prime Minister of Australia. They weren’t supposed to win. How did this happen? Apparently the Russians rigged the US elections but how Morrison managed to end up in The Lodge remains a mystery. The man’s a Christian, for God’s sake, and doesn’t believe that the world is about to end. Go figure. Nor do I believe that people who attempt to lie and cheat their way into the country should be allowed to settle here and struggle to understand why people like Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton is pilloried for doing what he is paid to do — protect our borders. My advice to those with bleeding heart tales who wish to live here? Get in the queue. Admitting that you admire Dutton for his forthrightness is, of course, akin to confessing to devil worship and not something you would dream of doing in the company of strangers lest you be set upon and tarred and feathered. I also have no time for the United Nations, a multi-billion dollar club which boasts among its members some of the great hypocrites and pontificators of our time and which seethes with corruption. Australia Day is three months distant so the non-indigenous among us must ready ourselves to be branded as white supremacists celebrating a bloody invasion. I don’t buy it. Instead of wasting energy moaning about historical wrongs, tackle the alcohol, drug and sexual abuse and poor parenting that denies so many indigenous children a shot at a better life. This is not a point of view that people publicly express because they know they will be denounced as being racists if they do so. So be it. Christmas in also coming but don’t mention Jesus or the birth of Christ lest in so doing, you offend someone and that would never do. I’ll continue to live, then, in my own little offensive, racist, climate denier world but I’ve a feeling that I am not alone. Please feel free to join me. Mike O’Connor is a columnist for The Courier-Mail.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 25^th, 2019 at 6:10am:

Undoubtedly the best thing we can do to solve this problem is to develop technologies which make coal and fossil fuels more expensive than our new technologies That shouldn't be too far into the future As per usual there are two types of people The people bounce out of bed full of positive emotion keen to get on with solving a problem and up for the challenge They hit the books They get their degree's in the hard sciences they might work on how to store energy in batteries or a new solar panel They are hunting for a solution They are the predators They feel awesome They are strong powerful and influential Then there are other people who bounce out of bed full of negative emotions People like Greta They are startled and flustered Their brains are a world wind of negative emotions They couldn't read a book if they tried They couldn't solve a problem if they tried which they won't They try to soothed they're emotions by waving placards and demonstrating their virtue to community They have the victim mentality They see themselves as prey animals being preyed upon buy carbon dioxide They feel terrible They are weak frightened and anxious As per usual the noble competent people in category 1 Will solve the problem And the hand ringing Nancy's in category 2 We'll take the credit ;D ;D ;D

Come on Scoot  ;D Whirl wind  :P

Voice to text
As a noble capitalist I am too busy to type

;D Yeah right

lee wrote on Nov 24^th, 2019 at 9:37pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 24th, 2019 at 8:03pm: I haven't given it any thought. Can you explain what it means? Since you have shown no sign of understanding the simple explanation offered, it is obviously beyond you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You really are hysterical aren't you. ;)

So you don't actually know what it means, you just thought it sounded clever? Or am I reading too much into it? Did you just copy and paste it into your little rant because elephants are your favorite animal?

Why did you describe it as historical?

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2019 at 11:29am:

Or am I reading too much into it?

You probably didn't read at all. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

"It means making models with too many parameters will give too many answers, depending on the variation. Wink

"By this he meant that one should not be impressed when a complex model fits a data set well. With enough parameters, you can fit any data set." "

https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/06/21/how-to-fit-an-elephant/

So in the mind of a hysterical climate skeptic, climate models should actually avoid trying to take a lot of factors into account that influence climate?

Why did you describe it as "historical"?

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2019 at 6:12pm:

So in the mind of a hysterical climate skeptic, climate models should actually avoid trying to take a lot of factors into account that influence climate? Why did you describe it as "historical"?

Nobody understands all the factors and how they interact.
THAT should be taken into account. But how do you model for known unknowns? You can't.  So they ignore them and pretend that the models cover all that makes the climate what it is.

That's  the stupid lie and hubristic crap about all the climate 'crisis and emergency' hooey.  Not admitting the extent of ignorance. That's what grates, the arrogant vehemence of ignorance.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2019 at 6:12pm:

So in the mind of a hysterical climate skeptic, climate models should actually avoid trying to take a lot of factors into account that influence climate?

No petal. But they should refrain from any assertions of proof. ;)

These things may happen, may not happen.


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2019 at 6:12pm:

Why did you describe it as "historical"?

Exactly what did I describe as "historical" petal? ;)

Quote:

Exactly what did I describe as "historical" petal?

Your hysterical one-liner about elephants and parameterisations.


Quote:

No petal. But they should refrain from any assertions of proof.

Can you explain the hysterical logic that makes it impossible to prove anything involving four or more parameters? Is it because you run out of fingers to count on?

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2019 at 6:58pm:

Quote: Exactly what did I describe as "historical" petal? Your hysterical one-liner about elephants and parameterisations.

wrong Petal.

It was in reply to one of your posts that merely repeated what I posted.

I then said -

"Making a perfectly acceptable statement is hardly hysterical. More like historical."


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2019 at 6:58pm:

Can you explain the hysterical logic that makes it impossible to prove anything involving four or more parameters? Is it because you run out of fingers to count on?

Nope. It's because YOU run out of brains. When you were behind the door when they said "brains" you thought they said "trains" and you responded you were going by car. ;)

aquascoot wrote on Nov 25^th, 2019 at 8:03am:

Voice to text As a noble capitalist I am too busy to type

;D ;D

Gnads wrote on Nov 25^th, 2019 at 6:42am:

Quote: Mike O’Connor-October 21, 2019 8:00pm There are times when I feel like a stranger in my own country, the urge to scream in frustration all but overwhelming. My problem is that I’m not a believer. I don’t believe in man-made climate change and shake my head in bemusement at the people who are presently running through the streets screaming “climate emergency.” We now live in an age in which if something is said often enough by self-interested parties then it must be true. Anyone who attempts to voice a contrary view is howled down and branded a “denier.” No one dares to be different. Such is the desperate need to be accepted and on-trend that we will happily go along with any point of view which will be favourably viewed by social media. The intellectual laziness of the masses is as sad as it is tragic. We have become a nation of unthinking morons which unquestioningly accepts the views of self-anointed “experts” without wondering if their shouted declarations that the end is nigh might just be driven by the urgent need to justify their existence and get their hands on another research grant. To be a climate denier is to suffer eternal damnation but it is perfectly fine to be a democracy denier as witnessed by the fact that there are large numbers of very noisy people who still can’t accept that Donald Trump is President of the United States and Scott Morrison Prime Minister of Australia. They weren’t supposed to win. How did this happen? Apparently the Russians rigged the US elections but how Morrison managed to end up in The Lodge remains a mystery. The man’s a Christian, for God’s sake, and doesn’t believe that the world is about to end. Go figure. Nor do I believe that people who attempt to lie and cheat their way into the country should be allowed to settle here and struggle to understand why people like Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton is pilloried for doing what he is paid to do — protect our borders. My advice to those with bleeding heart tales who wish to live here? Get in the queue. Admitting that you admire Dutton for his forthrightness is, of course, akin to confessing to devil worship and not something you would dream of doing in the company of strangers lest you be set upon and tarred and feathered. I also have no time for the United Nations, a multi-billion dollar club which boasts among its members some of the great hypocrites and pontificators of our time and which seethes with corruption. Australia Day is three months distant so the non-indigenous among us must ready ourselves to be branded as white supremacists celebrating a bloody invasion. I don’t buy it. Instead of wasting energy moaning about historical wrongs, tackle the alcohol, drug and sexual abuse and poor parenting that denies so many indigenous children a shot at a better life. This is not a point of view that people publicly express because they know they will be denounced as being racists if they do so. So be it. Christmas in also coming but don’t mention Jesus or the birth of Christ lest in so doing, you offend someone and that would never do. I’ll continue to live, then, in my own little offensive, racist, climate denier world but I’ve a feeling that I am not alone. Please feel free to join me. Mike O’Connor is a columnist for The Courier-Mail.

Cheers to that... 🍻

lee wrote on Nov 25^th, 2019 at 7:08pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 25th, 2019 at 6:58pm: Quote: Exactly what did I describe as "historical" petal? Your hysterical one-liner about elephants and parameterisations. wrong Petal. It was in reply to one of your posts that merely repeated what I posted. I then said - "Making a perfectly acceptable statement is hardly hysterical. More like historical." freediver wrote on Nov 25th, 2019 at 6:58pm: Can you explain the hysterical logic that makes it impossible to prove anything involving four or more parameters? Is it because you run out of fingers to count on? Nope. It's because YOU run out of brains. When you were behind the door when they said "brains" you thought they said "trains" and you responded you were going by car. ;)

So you did describe it as historical. Why?

And why are you now running away from your elephant parameterisation quip?


Quote:

To be a climate denier is to suffer eternal damnation

Thanks Gnads. Another good example of hysterics from climate skeptics.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2019 at 9:39pm:

So you did describe it as historical. Why?

What that "Making a perfectly acceptable statement is hardly hysterical"?

Would you describe making acceptable statements as hysterical? Really? ;)


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2019 at 9:39pm:

And why are you now running away from your elephant parameterisation quip?

I'm not petal. I gave you a simple explanation and that was too difficult  for you. A more complex one would hardly achieve anything else. ;)

Quote:

I gave you a simple explanation and that was too difficult  for you.

Your "explanation" was that we cannot prove anything if it involves four or more parameters. Does this apply to other areas of science, or just those areas that induce hysteria?


Quote:

What that "Making a perfectly acceptable statement is hardly hysterical"?

Calm down Lee. This is what I asked: why did you describe your elephant parameterisation quip as "historical"?

Here's your prediction record Chicken Little/Henny Penny

Who's hysterical?

---

Gnads wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 8:41am:

Who's hysterical?

The people who seek out  nonsense on the internet so they can pretend relative hysteria is normal.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 6:45am:

Your "explanation" was that we cannot prove anything if it involves four or more parameters. Does this apply to other areas of science, or just those areas that induce hysteria?

All areas petal. If we parametrise 4 data sets each having 100 data points the chance of being correct is -

1 in 10² x 1in 10² x 1 in 10² x 1in 10²

or 1 in 100,000,000.

Now that doesn't mean they might not jag a correct output. 20x30x40x50 =1,200,000

20x30x20x100 gives the same result and many others will also.


freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 6:45am:

Calm down Lee. This is what I asked: why did you describe your elephant parameterisation quip as "historical"?

he short answer is I didn't. You did. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Global Warming is a conspiracy by Science to employ itself to profit from 'Air Conditioning' the Planet to its own desires.

Jasin wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 11:47am:

Global Warming is a conspiracy by Science to employ itself to profit from 'Air Conditioning' the Planet to its own desires.

Another good one.  Thanks Jasin.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 11:30am:

Gnads wrote on Nov 26th, 2019 at 8:41am: Who's hysterical? The people who seek out  nonsense on the internet so they can pretend relative hysteria is normal.

Or people who follow a global lunacy like a religion?

You're looking in the mirror aren't you?

The prediction from climate science was more severe weather extremes ....well that proved correct.....and yet the deniers will still deny until their last breath....call that  human conditioning.

Pedro Curevo wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 4:12pm:

The prediction from climate science was more severe weather extremes ..

Why? Did you think severe weather extremes would stop? One more is one more on the list.

Or if you meant severe weather extremes would occur more often, that is different. Cyclones/ hurricanes down.
Drought numbers the IPCC says the data is too sparse.
Floods - the IPCC says low confidence sparse data.

But perhaps you can enlighten us on which ones. ;)

Weather extremes?

Will it get as hot as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum era?

Will it get as cold as the Ice age?

Will the earth get enough rain so we can have have an inland sea again?

Climate science: there's no need for climate protests in China because China is already communist.

Pedro Curevo wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 4:12pm:

The prediction from climate science was more severe weather extremes ....well that proved correct.....and yet the deniers will still deny until their last breath....call that  human conditioning.

More extreme than what?

You're full of 'it.

The People of the World
don't need 'Science' or 'Politicians' to tell them that the Weather on Earth has become more extreme, erratic, unpredictable and of much change in less time than a Century.
People 'remember'.

It doesn't matter if it is Man Made or a Natural Occurance happening.
All that they know is that the World they live in seems like it is 'dying', not 'growing' - with all this new found Scientific 'wonder'. ::)

People of the World are scared.
The Children of the Future are scared that there will be none for them.

It doesn't matter if it is Man-Made or Natural.
Nor if it is 'both' contributing.
The point is that people should now invest in NASA's Rescue Package of all those wonderful worlds out there to invade, er - explore and live forever! Donate to NASA now!

The three hysterias of the denialist camp:

The classical/conspiracy hysteria:
It's all a giant conspiracy between the scientific community and the UN, who are trying to take over the world.

The pseudo-intellectual hysteria:
Frost this morning, therefor no global warming.

The libertarian hysteria:
Calling me an idiot infringes on my right to say stupid things.

Does that cover all of them?


Gnads wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 1:22pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 26th, 2019 at 11:30am: Gnads wrote on Nov 26th, 2019 at 8:41am: Who's hysterical? The people who seek out  nonsense on the internet so they can pretend relative hysteria is normal. Or people who follow a global lunacy like a religion? You're looking in the mirror aren't you?

Yes Gnads, that is hysterical too - trying to pass off what the global scientific community is up to as lunacy and a religion. Are you ever not hysterically misrepresenting things you don't like?

...meanwhile Lee is so hysterical he cannot remember what he posted the day before. He is now blaming me for this:


lee wrote on Nov 24^th, 2019 at 5:41pm:

Making a perfectly acceptable statement is hardly hysterical. More like historical.

Now can you explain why you described it as historical Lee? Or have you forgotten again?

Nice work with the crayons Gnads:


Gnads wrote on Nov 25^th, 2019 at 6:40am:

Quote: Mike O’Connor-October 21, 2019 8:00pm There are times when I feel like a stranger in my own country, the urge to scream in frustration all but overwhelming. My problem is that I’m not a believer. I don’t believe in man-made climate change and shake my head in bemusement at the people who are presently running through the streets screaming “climate emergency.” We now live in an age in which if something is said often enough by self-interested parties then it must be true. Anyone who attempts to voice a contrary view is howled down and branded a “denier.” No one dares to be different. Such is the desperate need to be accepted and on-trend that we will happily go along with any point of view which will be favourably viewed by social media. The intellectual laziness of the masses is as sad as it is tragic. We have become a nation of unthinking morons which unquestioningly accepts the views of self-anointed “experts” without wondering if their shouted declarations that the end is nigh might just be driven by the urgent need to justify their existence and get their hands on another research grant. To be a climate denier is to suffer eternal damnation but it is perfectly fine to be a democracy denier as witnessed by the fact that there are large numbers of very noisy people who still can’t accept that Donald Trump is President of the United States and Scott Morrison Prime Minister of Australia. They weren’t supposed to win. How did this happen? Apparently the Russians rigged the US elections but how Morrison managed to end up in The Lodge remains a mystery. The man’s a Christian, for God’s sake, and doesn’t believe that the world is about to end. Go figure. Nor do I believe that people who attempt to lie and cheat their way into the country should be allowed to settle here and struggle to understand why people like Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton is pilloried for doing what he is paid to do — protect our borders. My advice to those with bleeding heart tales who wish to live here? Get in the queue. Admitting that you admire Dutton for his forthrightness is, of course, akin to confessing to devil worship and not something you would dream of doing in the company of strangers lest you be set upon and tarred and feathered. I also have no time for the United Nations, a multi-billion dollar club which boasts among its members some of the great hypocrites and pontificators of our time and which seethes with corruption. Australia Day is three months distant so the non-indigenous among us must ready ourselves to be branded as white supremacists celebrating a bloody invasion. I don’t buy it. Instead of wasting energy moaning about historical wrongs, tackle the alcohol, drug and sexual abuse and poor parenting that denies so many indigenous children a shot at a better life. This is not a point of view that people publicly express because they know they will be denounced as being racists if they do so. So be it. Christmas in also coming but don’t mention Jesus or the birth of Christ lest in so doing, you offend someone and that would never do. I’ll continue to live, then, in my own little offensive, racist, climate denier world but I’ve a feeling that I am not alone. Please feel free to join me. Mike O’Connor is a columnist for The Courier-Mail.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 7:58pm:

...meanwhile Lee is so hysterical he cannot remember what he posted the day before. He is now blaming me for this: lee wrote on Nov 24th, 2019 at 3:41pm: Making a perfectly acceptable statement is hardly hysterical. More like historical. Now can you explain why you described it as historical Lee? Or have you forgotten again?

I didn't forget in the first place petal. You were referring to a quote I made. ;)

I didn't blame you for it. I said you were responsible. responsibility is not blame. ;)


lee wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 11:31am:

freediver wrote Today at 4:45am: Calm down Lee. This is what I asked: why did you describe your elephant parameterisation quip as "historical"?

Now perfectly acceptable statements have always been made, that makes them historical. Why would you think otherwise? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 24^th, 2019 at 5:41pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 24th, 2019 at 5:18pm: lee wrote on Nov 24th, 2019 at 4:10pm: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." John von Neumann Yes petal was there something you wanted to know? Making a perfectly acceptable statement is hardly hysterical. More like historical.

lee wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 11:31am:

freediver wrote on Nov 26th, 2019 at 6:45am: Calm down Lee. This is what I asked: why did you describe your elephant parameterisation quip as "historical"? he short answer is I didn't. You did. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So now you remember saying it, but forget denying you said it? Is this why you think scientists cannot model the influence of four different factors at once, on account of your difficulty holding two thoughts at the same time?

DONATE YOUR MONEY TO NASA NOW!

NASA will provide the answer of a Geo-sphere around the planet to help the planet's weather.
By coincidence, NASA has recently discovered a planet that appears, by all calculations, to have a 'Geo-Sphere' around it.
Don't worry about NASA's Scientists working to prevent the problem, you can rest assure that NASA will provide a 'Cure'  for a nominal price.  ;)
NASA's 'Air-Conditioning' will allow you to live in perfect weather conditions of reliable light rains and no more heatwaves or blizzards.
The Dinosaurs enjoyed a constant stable 30C at the Equator and 10C at the Poles. NASA can give you that.

DONATE YOUR MONEY TO NASA NOW!

ScoMo already has ( Tribute to the USA).
You can too!

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 9:58pm:

o now you remember saying it, but forget denying you said it?

No petal. you made a false attribution. Not my fault live with it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 9:58pm:

Is this why you think scientists cannot model the influence of four different factors at once, on account of your difficulty holding two thoughts at the same time?

See I told you it was too complex for you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bye

Quote:

More extreme than what? You're full of 'it.

As one recall's the denialist were predicting  weather is cooling because one or two below avg cool days, now as we are seeing the weather is warming and in prolonged drought that has created the most extreme bushfires....as the climate scientist were predicting, as they are also predicting rising sea levels...it is not hunky dory with the climate as the denialist are saying...and no doubt with waters lapping at their feet the denialist will still deny cliamte change is happening....CO2 is good for the planet they argue.

Just as E=mc2 its a known since the 18th C than adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will create global warming in the greenhouse effect.

Less than 10 years to just keep warming levels at 2 degs above avg....keep the way its going and it rises to 6 degs....catastrophic.

Just as Energy minister Angus Taylor uses false evidence to discredit Clover Moore over climate change, (conservatives tend to be malicious), the denialist are being malicious with climate change with false and cherry picked data that is designed for the fossil fuel industry to maintain pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere....which is criminal behaviour....they know what they are doing is killing the planet.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 7:58pm:

The three hysterias of the denialist camp: The classical/conspiracy hysteria: It's all a giant conspiracy between the scientific community and the UN, who are trying to take over the world. The pseudo-intellectual hysteria: Frost this morning, therefor no global warming. The libertarian hysteria: Calling me an idiot infringes on my right to say stupid things. Does that cover all of them? Gnads wrote on Nov 26th, 2019 at 1:22pm: freediver wrote on Nov 26th, 2019 at 11:30am: Gnads wrote on Nov 26th, 2019 at 8:41am: Who's hysterical? The people who seek out  nonsense on the internet so they can pretend relative hysteria is normal. Or people who follow a global lunacy like a religion? You're looking in the mirror aren't you? Yes Gnads, that is hysterical too - trying to pass off what the global scientific community is up to as lunacy and a religion. Are you ever not hysterically misrepresenting things you don't like? ...meanwhile Lee is so hysterical he cannot remember what he posted the day before. He is now blaming me for this: lee wrote on Nov 24th, 2019 at 5:41pm: Making a perfectly acceptable statement is hardly hysterical. More like historical. Now can you explain why you described it as historical Lee? Or have you forgotten again?

Of course FD ::) .....you're starting to sound like a Feminazi

no matter how you word it it's abuse. ::)

It's not a majority of opinion ... you close off any argument to the contrary ....not just my opinion ... but scientific opinion.

You are as bad in your reactions as looney lefties are about (your) conservatism.

Accusing others of "hysteria" when hands down the "end is nigh" hysteria is in the court of Climate Change activists .....

and their little poster girl Greta they use to front their agenda.

Get out & "Clean up Australia" & clean up our oceans of plastics ..... instead of trying to support
your misguided belief that the planet will be destroyed in 11 years time if something is not done about CO2 levels.

Never mind that any increase has been minimal and it's a vital part of plant & human survival.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2019 at 8:18pm:

Nice work with the crayons Gnads: Gnads wrote on Nov 25th, 2019 at 6:40am: Quote: Mike O’Connor-October 21, 2019 8:00pm There are times when I feel like a stranger in my own country, the urge to scream in frustration all but overwhelming. My problem is that I’m not a believer. I don’t believe in man-made climate change and shake my head in bemusement at the people who are presently running through the streets screaming “climate emergency.” We now live in an age in which if something is said often enough by self-interested parties then it must be true. Anyone who attempts to voice a contrary view is howled down and branded a “denier.” No one dares to be different. Such is the desperate need to be accepted and on-trend that we will happily go along with any point of view which will be favourably viewed by social media. The intellectual laziness of the masses is as sad as it is tragic. We have become a nation of unthinking morons which unquestioningly accepts the views of self-anointed “experts” without wondering if their shouted declarations that the end is nigh might just be driven by the urgent need to justify their existence and get their hands on another research grant. To be a climate denier is to suffer eternal damnation but it is perfectly fine to be a democracy denier as witnessed by the fact that there are large numbers of very noisy people who still can’t accept that Donald Trump is President of the United States and Scott Morrison Prime Minister of Australia. They weren’t supposed to win. How did this happen? Apparently the Russians rigged the US elections but how Morrison managed to end up in The Lodge remains a mystery. The man’s a Christian, for God’s sake, and doesn’t believe that the world is about to end. Go figure. Nor do I believe that people who attempt to lie and cheat their way into the country should be allowed to settle here and struggle to understand why people like Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton is pilloried for doing what he is paid to do — protect our borders. My advice to those with bleeding heart tales who wish to live here? Get in the queue. Admitting that you admire Dutton for his forthrightness is, of course, akin to confessing to devil worship and not something you would dream of doing in the company of strangers lest you be set upon and tarred and feathered. I also have no time for the United Nations, a multi-billion dollar club which boasts among its members some of the great hypocrites and pontificators of our time and which seethes with corruption. Australia Day is three months distant so the non-indigenous among us must ready ourselves to be branded as white supremacists celebrating a bloody invasion. I don’t buy it. Instead of wasting energy moaning about historical wrongs, tackle the alcohol, drug and sexual abuse and poor parenting that denies so many indigenous children a shot at a better life. This is not a point of view that people publicly express because they know they will be denounced as being racists if they do so. So be it. Christmas in also coming but don’t mention Jesus or the birth of Christ lest in so doing, you offend someone and that would never do. I’ll continue to live, then, in my own little offensive, racist, climate denier world but I’ve a feeling that I am not alone. Please feel free to join me. Mike O’Connor is a columnist for The Courier-Mail.

Such a witty retort ..... pity you couldn't take something from the high lights .....

because in regards to CC that's you.

Pedro Curevo wrote on Nov 27^th, 2019 at 6:33am:

Quote: More extreme than what? You're full of 'it. As one recall's the denialist were predicting  weather is cooling because one or two below avg cool days, now as we are seeing the weather is warming and in prolonged drought that has created the most extreme bushfires....as the climate scientist were predicting, as they are also predicting rising sea levels...it is not hunky dory with the climate as the denialist are saying...and no doubt with waters lapping at their feet the denialist will still deny cliamte change is happening....CO2 is good for the planet they argue. Just as E=mc2 its a known since the 18th C than adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will create global warming in the greenhouse effect. Less than 10 years to just keep warming levels at 2 degs above avg....keep the way its going and it rises to 6 degs....catastrophic. Just as Energy minister Angus Taylor uses false evidence to discredit Clover Moore over climate change, (conservatives tend to be malicious), the denialist are being malicious with climate change with false and cherry picked data that is designed for the fossil fuel industry to maintain pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere....which is criminal behaviour....they know what they are doing is killing the planet.

The end is nigh

been coming since 1967 in one prediction or another ....

so far zilch....

what's any different now?

People like you would have us going back to the dark ages to rectify the perceived CO2 increases ...

we can do it by ceasing the use of fossil fuels & using renewables ...

yet you can't build one without the other.

Strange ey ......

are you off the grid yet? Got plenty of papermache  handy?  ::)

Pedro Curevo wrote on Nov 27^th, 2019 at 6:33am:

As one recall's the denialist were predicting  weather is cooling because one or two below avg cool days, now as we are seeing the weather is warming and in prolonged drought that has created the most extreme bushfires..

You mean those climate scientists in the 1970's cooling scare? And that was supposedly caused by ...CO2.

Drought does not create bushfires. Natural events, lightning, creates bushfires. Accidents, grinders, vehicles etc, create bushfires. Arson creates bushfires.


Pedro Curevo wrote on Nov 27^th, 2019 at 6:33am:

.as the climate scientist were predicting, as they are also predicting rising sea levels..

Sea levels have been rising sunce the LIA at leat and possibly the last ice age. Prety hard not to make that prediction. ;)


Pedro Curevo wrote on Nov 27^th, 2019 at 6:33am:

Just as E=mc2 its a known since the 18th C than adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will create global warming in the greenhouse effect.

By how much?

You are such a joke.

Gnads wrote on Nov 27^th, 2019 at 6:53am:

freediver wrote on Nov 26th, 2019 at 7:58pm: The three hysterias of the denialist camp: The classical/conspiracy hysteria: It's all a giant conspiracy between the scientific community and the UN, who are trying to take over the world. The pseudo-intellectual hysteria: Frost this morning, therefor no global warming. The libertarian hysteria: Calling me an idiot infringes on my right to say stupid things. Does that cover all of them? Gnads wrote on Nov 26th, 2019 at 1:22pm: freediver wrote on Nov 26th, 2019 at 11:30am: Gnads wrote on Nov 26th, 2019 at 8:41am: Who's hysterical? The people who seek out  nonsense on the internet so they can pretend relative hysteria is normal. Or people who follow a global lunacy like a religion? You're looking in the mirror aren't you? Yes Gnads, that is hysterical too - trying to pass off what the global scientific community is up to as lunacy and a religion. Are you ever not hysterically misrepresenting things you don't like? ...meanwhile Lee is so hysterical he cannot remember what he posted the day before. He is now blaming me for this: lee wrote on Nov 24th, 2019 at 5:41pm: Making a perfectly acceptable statement is hardly hysterical. More like historical. Now can you explain why you described it as historical Lee? Or have you forgotten again? Of course FD ::) .....you're starting to sound like a Feminazi no matter how you word it it's abuse. ::) It's not a majority of opinion ... you close off any argument to the contrary ....not just my opinion ... but scientific opinion. You are as bad in your reactions as looney lefties are about (your) conservatism. Accusing others of "hysteria" when hands down the "end is nigh" hysteria is in the court of Climate Change activists ..... and their little poster girl Greta they use to front their agenda. Get out & "Clean up Australia" & clean up our oceans of plastics ..... instead of trying to support your misguided belief that the planet will be destroyed in 11 years time if something is not done about CO2 levels. Never mind that any increase has been minimal and it's a vital part of plant & human survival.

You are being irrational Gnads. None of the accusations you hurl at others detracts from your own mindless hysteria.

Ocker: "Where's North America? You know - the USA."
Strine:"It's at the 'End of the World' mate."

Gnads wrote on Nov 27^th, 2019 at 6:53am:

Get out & "Clean up Australia" & clean up our oceans of plastics ..... instead of trying to support your misguided belief that the planet will be destroyed in 11 years time if something is not done about CO2 levels.

Why can't we do both?
It's not an either/or proposition




Gnads wrote on Nov 27^th, 2019 at 6:53am:

Never mind that any increase has been minimal and it's a vital part of plant & human survival.

That old chestnut.
Water is also vital for plant & human survival and yet floods are a  bad thing.
Too much of anything can be bad and humans emitting additional CO₂ into the atmosphere is going to have a bad effect on the atmosphere.

Jasin wrote on Nov 27^th, 2019 at 5:25pm:

Ocker: "Where's North America? You know - the USA." Strine:"It's at the 'End of the World' mate."

;)

Quote:

Why can't we do both?

That wouldn't be hysterical enough for a climate skeptic. How can you possibly think about anything else until all that rubbish is cleaned up? It would be like holding two thoughts at the same time.

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 27^th, 2019 at 9:28pm:

oo much of anything can be bad and humans emitting additional CO2 into the atmosphere is going to have a bad effect on the atmosphere.

So you disagree withe the scientists that it is already upon us? ;D ;D ;D ;D

What is drought, how long does it last and what is a drought declaration?
Donna Coutts,
April 30, 2019 6:45PM

WHY IS AUSTRALIA VULNERABLE?
After Antarctica, Australia is the second-driest continent on Earth. More than 80 per cent of Australia gets less than 600mm of rain a year.

Air moves around the Earth in fairly regular patterns. Australia’s position on the globe is one reason we are at risk of drought as we sit in what is called a high-pressure belt. High pressure in the atmosphere pushes air down from the sky towards land. For it to rain, we need the opposite to happen: low pressure, or air lifting up.

Another factor that puts Australia at risk of drought is a natural, cyclical* weather system called El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). El Nino warms up the central Pacific Ocean to the east of Australia. El Nino pushes more air down towards land, which also prevents rain.

(The other part of ENSO is La Nina, which can deliver Australia lots of rain.)

Another weather system that can cause drought in Australia is the Indian Ocean Dipole, which moves air around the Indian Ocean to the west of Australia and determines how much rain falls over Australia.

A third weather system is the Southern Annular Mode (SAM), which operates to the south of Australia and determines whether cold fronts with rain in them make it to Australia.

I certainly am no expert, but I firmly believe it's all part of nature, there have been long severe droughts in the past, there will be again in the future.

Banning water tanks was a bad move, every one should have nothing less than a 5000 gallon water tank, for drinking & cooking, people should make themselves drinking and cooking waterproof.

We've had it extremely good for decades now, people have forgotten how valuable a decent rain water supply is.

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 27^th, 2019 at 9:28pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 27th, 2019 at 6:53am: Get out & "Clean up Australia" & clean up our oceans of plastics ..... instead of trying to support your misguided belief that the planet will be destroyed in 11 years time if something is not done about CO2 levels. Why can't we do both? It's not an either/or proposition Gnads wrote on Nov 27th, 2019 at 6:53am: Never mind that any increase has been minimal and it's a vital part of plant & human survival. That old chestnut. Water is also vital for plant & human survival and yet floods are a  bad thing. Too much of anything can be bad and humans emitting additional CO2 into the atmosphere is going to have a bad effect on the atmosphere.

So humans emit more than volcanic activity above & below the oceans?

The water on the planet is finite .... it goes around in a cycle  ...... it doesn't increase.

---

moses wrote on Nov 27^th, 2019 at 10:11pm:

What is drought, how long does it last and what is a drought declaration? Donna Coutts, April 30, 2019 6:45PM WHY IS AUSTRALIA VULNERABLE? After Antarctica, Australia is the second-driest continent on Earth. More than 80 per cent of Australia gets less than 600mm of rain a year. Air moves around the Earth in fairly regular patterns. Australia’s position on the globe is one reason we are at risk of drought as we sit in what is called a high-pressure belt. High pressure in the atmosphere pushes air down from the sky towards land. For it to rain, we need the opposite to happen: low pressure, or air lifting up. Another factor that puts Australia at risk of drought is a natural, cyclical* weather system called El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). El Nino warms up the central Pacific Ocean to the east of Australia. El Nino pushes more air down towards land, which also prevents rain. (The other part of ENSO is La Nina, which can deliver Australia lots of rain.) Another weather system that can cause drought in Australia is the Indian Ocean Dipole, which moves air around the Indian Ocean to the west of Australia and determines how much rain falls over Australia. A third weather system is the Southern Annular Mode (SAM), which operates to the south of Australia and determines whether cold fronts with rain in them make it to Australia. I certainly am no expert, but I firmly believe it's all part of nature, there have been long severe droughts in the past, there will be again in the future. Banning water tanks was a bad move, every one should have nothing less than a 5000 gallon water tank, for drinking & cooking, people should make themselves drinking and cooking waterproof. We've had it extremely good for decades now, people have forgotten how valuable a decent rain water supply is.

I agree with every one having a water tank .....but Governments certainly haven't forgotten the value of rain water ....

that's why state govts are adopting the policy fo claiming that collection of rainwater has to be paid for ...

water authorities go around to farms & measure the cubic capacity of dams & charge for it's usage.

I bet they will try to do the same with water tanks on houses.

Why should everyone have a water tank?

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 11:24am:

Why should everyone have a water tank?

Because it makes sense.

Johnnie wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 1:25pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2019 at 11:24am: Why should everyone have a water tank? Because it makes sense.

Because the Government can charge people for the water that people get from rain.
Just like they get paid for people getting sunlight on their panels.

Jasin wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 2:14pm:

Johnnie wrote on Nov 28th, 2019 at 1:25pm: freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2019 at 11:24am: Why should everyone have a water tank? Because it makes sense. Because the Government can charge people for the water that people get from rain. Just like they get paid for people getting sunlight on their panels.

Taxing people on rainwater tanks didn't get very far.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 11:24am:

Why should everyone have a water tank?

NO.
It's a good idea but they can be contaminated by mice, birds and other stuff.
Besides, where does it rain enough to keep the tank full?

AaronCRescue wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 5:04pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2019 at 11:24am: Why should everyone have a water tank? NO. It's a good idea but they can be contaminated by mice, birds and other stuff. Besides, where does it rain enough to keep the tank full?

Canberra, Neferti sock?

Johnnie wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 1:25pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2019 at 11:24am: Why should everyone have a water tank? Because it makes sense.

On account of being able to get water by turning on a tap?

The pseudo-intellectual hysteria:


lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 4:07pm:

Michael E Mann who famously made a hockeystick by grafting thermometer records onto his one tree mometer. ;)

AaronCRescue wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 5:04pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2019 at 11:24am: Why should everyone have a water tank? NO. It's a good idea but they can be contaminated by mice, birds and other stuff. Besides, where does it rain enough to keep the tank full?

My father grew up on rainwater, I've used it for years, no problem. The problem is tanks in cities and it's not birds or mice that are the problem, it's the pollution. Even in cities it's not a bad idea, it's free water not impacted by water restrictions, just don't drink it.

Quote:

it's free water

...that costs a lot more than turning on a tap.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 6:35pm:

Johnnie wrote on Nov 28th, 2019 at 1:25pm: freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2019 at 11:24am: Why should everyone have a water tank? Because it makes sense. On account of being able to get water by turning on a tap?

On account of letting your catchment area run into the sea in most cities, a couple of tanks could easily service most households, with a pump, or gravity feed the lawn. I never drink from rainwater tanks though.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 7:23pm:

Quote: it's free water ...that costs a lot more than turning on a tap.

Sure it may when you factor in the cost of tanks, how long does it take to recoup the costs of the tanks, but it's water that is not subject to restrictions which are more and more frequent. Lismore now gets restrictions because our water is now sent to the coast with it's ever increasing population and is now considering restrictions when the Rocky Creek dam is at 60%. Rainwater here is good and clean.

Quote:

Sure it may when you factor in the cost of tanks, how long does it take to recoup the costs of the tanks

Longer than the life of the tank.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 7:37pm:

Quote: Sure it may when you factor in the cost of tanks, how long does it take to recoup the costs of the tanks Longer than the life of the tank.

What about the rest?

What is the cost of reestablishing gardens etc lost to restrictions? There is not only the cost of water/tanks to look at.

Water restrictions are a sign of government mismanagement of the water supply. If we had to line up for food people would burn down parliament house, but the government has convinced us that rationing water is some kind of moral imperative.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 7:49pm:

Water restrictions are a sign of government mismanagement of the water supply. If we had to line up for food people would burn down parliament house, but the government has convinced us that rationing water is some kind of moral imperative.

That's not the point though. If you have a need for water and you can't use what comes through the pipes, what do you do? Tanks cost money, gardens cost money, lawns cost money, filling pools for the kids costs money. It's like you are saying we get electricity from the wires, we don't need solar or god forbid, generators.

Water tanks, solar/batteries, generators can make a difference in the face of bad governance.

I got a water tank a while back. The government paid for it. That's when I did the maths to see how much sense it made.

If it's a choice between tank water and nothing, I would go with tank water.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 9:42pm:

I got a water tank a while back. The government paid for it. That's when I did the maths to see how much sense it made. If it's a choice between tank water and nothing, I would go with tank water.

See, not so hard. Do you have solar/batteries/generator too? Anything that relieves you of your reliance on the govt we have these days will probably pay off, even if it's not entirely economically reasonable.

I almost got solar when the government was subsidising it most heavily, but I was concerned about the risks (electrocution), and putting holes in the roof. I don't have solar, batteries or a generator. Not sure I would see it as reducing my reliance on the government. I would only get it if the government paid for it for me.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 9:52pm:

I almost got solar when the government was subsidising it most heavily, but I was concerned about the risks (electrocution), and putting holes in the roof. I don't have solar, batteries or a generator. Not sure I would see it as reducing my reliance on the government. I would only get it if the government paid for it for me.

If the supply was cut, what would you have? Dark? Rotting food? What would be the cost? We see a storm in Sydney took the power out for how long? In the richest suburbs of Sydney? Those with solar would have had their fridge and freezers working.

It's really a non brainer. If the govt says it will pay for something like that, take it.

I put up money for a local start up green energy company here, Enova. I have 1250 shares in it. All it's energy is supposed to be green. I thought, WTF, lets support it. It's still growing. My aim wasn't to make money from it but to give them the chance to make it work. It's still going and I hope it continues. It will buy your solar or other green energy.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 7:23pm:

Quote: it's free water ...that costs a lot more than turning on a tap.

At a $1.77 a kiloliter for town water I don't think so?

It can be used to supplement toilet water use, watering plants & washing a vehicle during water restriction times.

And depending on location ... drinking water.

Besides that a bit of birdshyte in the water is better than ingesting fluoridated tap water.

Setanta wrote on Nov 28^th, 2019 at 9:57pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2019 at 9:52pm: I almost got solar when the government was subsidising it most heavily, but I was concerned about the risks (electrocution), and putting holes in the roof. I don't have solar, batteries or a generator. Not sure I would see it as reducing my reliance on the government. I would only get it if the government paid for it for me. If the supply was cut, what would you have? Dark? Rotting food? What would be the cost? We see a storm in Sydney took the power out for how long? In the richest suburbs of Sydney? Those with solar would have had their fridge and freezers working. It's really a non brainer. If the govt says it will pay for something like that, take it.

I'd have to keep the fridge and freezer closed. Worst case scenario I would live off CC's and warm beer for a day.


Quote:

At a $1.77 a kiloliter for town water I don't think so?

So 0.177c per litre?


Quote:

It can be used to supplement toilet water use

What does that come to? Half a cent per flush?

Global Warming evidence  :o

---

Gnads wrote on Nov 29^th, 2019 at 7:00am:

[quote author=freediver link=1574571749/76#76 date=1574933001] Besides that a bit of birdshyte in the water is better than ingesting fluoridated tap water.

Oh no, don't tell me you are an anti fluoride loony as well.

animal fecal matter is much more harmful than the fluoride.

Ironically the amount of fluoride in drinking water is 1 ppm. Thats 400 times less than the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere which you dismiss as a "trace gas"

;D ;D ;D ;D

Humanity is a part of nature on this world.
Our impact is a natural process.

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 30^th, 2019 at 9:40am:

Gnads wrote on Nov 29th, 2019 at 7:00am: [quote author=freediver link=1574571749/76#76 date=1574933001] Besides that a bit of birdshyte in the water is better than ingesting fluoridated tap water. Oh no, don't tell me you are an anti fluoride loony as well. animal fecal matter is much more harmful than the fluoride. Ironically the amount of fluoride in drinking water is 1 ppm. Thats 400 times less than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which you dismiss as a "trace gas" ;D ;D ;D ;D

You really are deluded.

Hexafluorsiliic Acid is a contaminated industrial waste ......

and that's what they put in public water supplies & call fluoride.

What they put in toothpaste is sodium fluoride, but at least it's pharmacy grade

Dentists get you to rinse thoroughly whenever they give you a topical fluoride treatment.

They know it's toxic.

what comes from nature is calcium fluoride .... but local authorities don't use that .........

they use toxic industrial waste.

The state that has had fluoride in their water the longest - TASMANIA-(66 years) has the highest adult tooth decay rate in the country.

Gnads I realise the topic might not have been clear, but this thread is supposed to be for mindless hysterics about climate change, not other random conspiracies.

Here's  climate crisis activism in its full, hideous, stupid 'glory':
https://theconversation.com/amp/the-five-corrupt-pillars-of-climate-change-denial-122893

Tendentious, emo fvkwittery at its densest.
On The Conversation, of course.

How does it make you feel Frank?

The Air is Thinning.
The sky is falling down.
Abandon your posts!!!

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2019 at 12:44pm:

Gnads I realise the topic might not have been clear, but this thread is supposed to be for mindless hysterics about climate change, not other random conspiracies.

It's done by several other members here as an art form.......

they call it expanding the conversation & say no topic stays on track.

Why should I follow your rules of engagement?

Oh all right then. Post all your mindless hysterics here.

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2019 at 9:28pm:

How does it make you feel Frank?

“She’s an idiot. Going round saying we’re all going to die, that’s not going to solve anything, my dear,” he said.  Mr Clarkson has previously attacked Ms Thunberg in an op-ed article published by The Sun, where he described her as having an adolescent melt-down and told her to calm down. “So be a good girl, shut up and let them get on with it. And no. You cannot stay out past 10. And you cannot go out in a skirt that short," he said.

There there.

FD there is no reason to comment, all one has to do is read some of your mindless statements in this topic to see your true nature.


Quote:

mindless hysterics from climate skeptics

Ajax wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 8:21am:

FD there is no reason to comment, all one has to do is read some of your mindless statements in this topic to see your true nature. Quote: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics

Feel free to quote me, if you aren't full of it.

It was beastly hot in Orstralya in 1946

Climate change .. no?

---

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2019 at 12:44pm:

Gnads I realise the topic might not have been clear, but this thread is supposed to be for mindless hysterics about climate change, not other random conspiracies.

My bad, I did encourage him
Although I would still like a response to this question



The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 30^th, 2019 at 9:40am:

Ironically the amount of fluoride in drinking water is 1 ppm. That's 400 times less than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which you dismiss as a "trace gas" ;D ;D ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 9:19am:

freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2019 at 12:44pm: Gnads I realise the topic might not have been clear, but this thread is supposed to be for mindless hysterics about climate change, not other random conspiracies. My bad, I did encourage him Although I would still like a response to this question The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 30th, 2019 at 9:40am: Ironically the amount of fluoride in drinking water is 1 ppm. That's 400 times less than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which you dismiss as a "trace gas" ;D ;D ;D ;D

Why don't you tell me why you accept the toxic contaminated industrial waste from the fertilizer & Aluminium industries dumped into public water supplies as being fluoride?


Quote:

Others at EPA, however, have voiced their objections to this process. In 2000, Dr. William Hirzy, the senior vice president of EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists and Professionals, stated: ‘”If this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant… There’s got to be a better way to manage this stuff.”

https://fluoridealert.org/issues/water/fluoridation-chemicals/

Patrick Moore
BSc Biology PhD Ecology, Greenpeace co-founder, left in '86 to be The Sensible Environmentalist. Chair, http://CO2Coalition.org . Science & logic, not sensation & fear.
‏


No genuine scientist would ever ridicule skepticism. It is one of the defining features of an inquisitive mind.
No genuine scientist would use the word “denier” to describe another scientist.
No genuine scientist would claim a compute model is able to predict future climates. QED

https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1104643301980889089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1104643301980889089&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fvladtepesblog.com%2F

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 10:29am:

Patrick Moore BSc Biology PhD Ecology, Greenpeace co-founder, left in '86 to be The Sensible Environmentalist. Chair, http://CO2Coalition.org . Science & logic, not sensation & fear. ‏ No genuine scientist would ever ridicule skepticism. It is one of the defining features of an inquisitive mind. No genuine scientist would use the word “denier” to describe another scientist. No genuine scientist would claim a compute model is able to predict future climates. QED https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1104643301980889089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1104643301980889089&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fvladtepesblog.com%2F

Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore
Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.
Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace
Patrick Moore is a Paid Spokesperson for the Nuclear Industry

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

Oh dear, looks like he's just another paid hack

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 10:38am:

Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 10:29am: Patrick Moore BSc Biology PhD Ecology, Greenpeace co-founder, left in '86 to be The Sensible Environmentalist. Chair, http://CO2Coalition.org . Science & logic, not sensation & fear. ‏ No genuine scientist would ever ridicule skepticism. It is one of the defining features of an inquisitive mind. No genuine scientist would use the word “denier” to describe another scientist. No genuine scientist would claim a compute model is able to predict future climates. QED https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1104643301980889089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1104643301980889089&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fvladtepesblog.com%2F Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes. Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace Patrick Moore is a Paid Spokesperson for the Nuclear Industry https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/ Oh dear, looks like he's just another paid hack

Er... and which of those three statements is a lie or distortion or hackery???

(needless to say, there is absolutely nothing wrong with advocating nuclear energy.)

Quote:

Why don't you tell me why you accept the toxic contaminated industrial waste from the fertilizer & Aluminium industries dumped into public water supplies as being fluoride?

Because that's what it is? It's like getting water from recycled sewage. It's still water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHUHsBnpCj8&t=331s

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 10:56am:

Er... and which of those three statements is a lie or distortion or hackery???

They are all lies and distortion

There is a difference between a "skeptic" and a "denier". A skeptic will change their opinion when presented with facts and doesn't resort to conspiracy theories to defend their position
Science is in fact all about making predictions. The fundamental scientific process is to make a prediction and then see if it is accurate.

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 10:56am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 10:38am: Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 10:29am: Patrick Moore BSc Biology PhD Ecology, Greenpeace co-founder, left in '86 to be The Sensible Environmentalist. Chair, http://CO2Coalition.org . Science & logic, not sensation & fear. ‏ No genuine scientist would ever ridicule skepticism. It is one of the defining features of an inquisitive mind. No genuine scientist would use the word “denier” to describe another scientist. No genuine scientist would claim a compute model is able to predict future climates. QED https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1104643301980889089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1104643301980889089&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fvladtepesblog.com%2F Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes. Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace Patrick Moore is a Paid Spokesperson for the Nuclear Industry https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/ Oh dear, looks like he's just another paid hack Er... and which of those three statements is a lie or distortion or hackery??? (needless to say, there is absolutely nothing wrong with advocating nuclear energy.)

Got to agree with Barnacle about Patrick Moore

he's a mouth for sale ... even for Monsanto

He told a reporter that RoundUp was so safe you could drink it ........

and when he was challenged to do so he folded.

Absolutely no credibility ... in fact he's a Snake Oil Salesman for Hire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:00am:

Quote: Why don't you tell me why you accept the toxic contaminated industrial waste from the fertilizer & Aluminium industries dumped into public water supplies as being fluoride? Because that's what it is? It's like getting water from recycled sewage. It's still water.

;D ;D ::)

Patrick Moore was one of the co-founders of Greenpeace.

Notice how Greenpeace changes it just a little? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Of course they don't like to admit it now. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 12:16pm:

Patrick Moore was one of the co-founders of Greenpeace. Notice how Greenpeace changes it just a little? ;D ;D ;D ;D Of course they don't like to admit it now. ;)

Not according to Greenpeace

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace’s response are available here (PDF).

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

caught out lying again lee  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Gnads wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:56am:

He told a reporter that RoundUp was so safe you could drink it .....

"On March 20, 2015, IARC announced its conclusion: Glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans."

"The scientific picture got more complicated, though. Other government agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority, took a fresh look at glyphosate. And they concluded that it probably is not giving people cancer."

"David Eastmond, a toxicologist from the University of California, Riverside, helped conduct one of these glyphosate reviews for another part of the World Health Organization, the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues.

"From my reading of things, if glyphosate causes cancer, it's a pretty weak carcinogen, which means that you're going to need pretty high doses in order to cause it," he says.

Eastmond says that there are several reasons for this apparent disagreement between IARC and the other agencies.

First, IARC just looks at whether glyphosate can cause cancer; regulators, on the other hand, have to decide whether it actually will, considering how much of it people are exposed to."

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/05/30/727914874/safe-or-scary-the-shifting-reputation-of-glyphosate-aka-roundup

As to whether it is safe to drink it probably is at the recommended level. ;)

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 12:19pm:

caught out lying again lee

No petal. You are relying on Greenpeace to prove Greenpeace is not lying. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 12:30pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 12:19pm: caught out lying again lee No petal. You are relying on Greenpeace to prove Greenpeace is not lying. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

They have provided evidence on their site
whereas you have provided nothing.....  ;)

The Greenies are going nuts. Soon they'll take 'military' like actions to support their cause. Lefties are getting violent.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 2:19pm:

They have provided evidence on their site whereas you have provided nothing..

So because they have deleted all reference it never occurred, ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Now ll you haveto is convince anyone about Mann's fraudulent hockeystick. Ad he even got done over in the Canadian Court because he wouldn't provide the evidence that would have cleared him; had it existed , of course. ;)

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:21am:

Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 10:56am: Er... and which of those three statements is a lie or distortion or hackery??? They are all lies and distortion There is a difference between a "skeptic" and a "denier". A skeptic will change their opinion when presented with facts and doesn't resort to conspiracy theories to defend their position Science is in fact all about making predictions. The fundamental scientific process is to make a prediction and then see if it is accurate.

Well, none of the 'climate catastrophe' predictions have been anything but wildly wide of the mark.  Why is it not permitted to be skeptical of them?  The catastrophist emperors have no clothes. Never had.  That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous.
But if it wasn't, you would all be shouting and screaming at the Chinese Embassies around the world. But you aren't because China is communist already.

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 8:03pm:

That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous.

So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics?

Cheer up everyone.
The Militaries of the World do not see an 'environmental catastrophe' in the future.
They are not trained to see that. They don't give a rats.
So stop trying to 'change their minds' and just get on with doing something about it yourselves.

;)

---

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 9:52pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 8:03pm: That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous. So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics?

I don't  think scientists are saying it. It's  mostly  activists, journalists, propagandists. The scientists who said that sort of thing - Manne, for example - are discredited.

The modelling is incomplete because the understanding is incomplete, that's  why its predictive power  is negligible. Statistics is selective and climate change is statistics. Human co2 us negligible in the atmospheric economy of gases. Its power to overrule all other factors is a risible fantasy. Hubris.

Patrick Moore
@EcoSenseNow

Patrick Moore Retweeted Climate Change
You should get out more. Polar bears have increased 400% in 45 yrs. Whales are nearly fully recovered. Extinctions are down 90% past century (IUCN). Koalas doing fine. If we could ban wind turbines we could save 85,000 birds of prey/yr in US alone.Patrick Moore added,
Climate Change

@ClimaClimate
Replying to @ClimaClimate @MLeiter42 and 2 others
We are facing mass extinction at the moment, severe land degradation, ocean & air pollution, etc, which is why I commented on this post. It's not simply a "climate crisis", and I agree that there is branding involved behind the term, but for the opposite reasons. 3/3
7:59 am - 1 Dec 2019 From Los Cabos, Baja California Sur

https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1201168883719319555

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:21pm:

The modelling is incomplete because the understanding is incomplete, that's  why its predictive power  is negligible. Statistics is selective and climate change is statistics. Human co2 us negligible in the atmospheric economy of gases. Its power to overrule all other factors is a risible fantasy. Hubris.

For a science with "negligible" predictive power and models based on "risible fantasy", its predictions have been extraordinarily accurate.

Therefore, climatologists make really lucky guesses?

Robot wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 5:17pm:

For a science with "negligible" predictive power and models based on "risible fantasy", its predictions have been extraordinarily accurate.

Which predictions? name them.

lee wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 5:54pm:

Robot wrote on Dec 2nd, 2019 at 5:17pm: For a science with "negligible" predictive power and models based on "risible fantasy", its predictions have been extraordinarily accurate. Which predictions? name them.

They used computer models, lee. It's too hard for you to understand.

Robot wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 6:47pm:

They used computer models, lee. It's too hard for you to understand.

So you said something that you can't back up. Why am  not surprised? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 5:54pm:

Robot wrote on Dec 2nd, 2019 at 5:17pm: For a science with "negligible" predictive power and models based on "risible fantasy", its predictions have been extraordinarily accurate. Which predictions? name them.

He can't. Climate science is stats and the models are hopelessly inadequate and incomplete. Having only one climate, the Earth's, the various hypotheses and conjectures are untestable and un-reproducable by experiment (the basic requirements of advancing scientific conjectures and refutations). So all the models have the inbuilt bias of the proponents of the hypothesis that cannot ever be experimentally tested.

And so we have the history of 'climate change' littered with predictions that never eventuate. Not the warming, not the sea levels, not the inundation, not the catastrophies. Very importantly none of the floods, fires, heavy snow, no snow, more ice, no ice can ever, EVER, be shown to be due to human CO2. The connection is endlessly asserted but never, ever demonstrated. Because it cannot be. It's no more scieentifically accurate than the entrails of chickens, the flights of birds and all the other auguries based on incomplete understanding.  They do NOT know how human CO2 affects anything. On a planet with carbon based life to make CO@ the villain is agit-prop genious with no scientific credibility.  It's modern-day, atheist 'theology' about Mother Gaia.

Predictions?

It was highlighted on Q&A by the collection of 'Futurists' - that Science Fiction has even had a +50% success rate.
In fact, overall - science fiction as a collective of narrative, shows a general theme that they all share.

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:21pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 9:52pm: Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 8:03pm: That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous. So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics? I don't  think scientists are saying it. It's  mostly  activists, journalists, propagandists. The scientists who said that sort of thing - Manne, for example - are discredited. The modelling is incomplete because the understanding is incomplete, that's  why its predictive power  is negligible. Statistics is selective and climate change is statistics. Human co2 us negligible in the atmospheric economy of gases. Its power to overrule all other factors is a risible fantasy. Hubris.

So scientists are not actually saying that anthropogenic GHG emissions change the climate? Or were you oblivious to the mindless hysterics in your own post?


Quote:

The scientists who said that sort of thing - Manne, for example - are discredited.

Pseudo-intellectual hysterics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph#Mann,_Bradley_and_Hughes_1998

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions

Frank wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 6:50pm:

He can't. Climate science is stats and the models are hopelessly inadequate and incomplete. Having only one climate, the Earth's, the various hypotheses and conjectures are untestable and un-reproducable by experiment (the basic requirements of advancing scientific conjectures and refutations). So all the models have the inbuilt bias of the proponents of the hypothesis that cannot ever be experimentally tested.

If only there was a way to measure temperatures and see if the scientists have made accurate predictions...

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 6:58pm:

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions

Was that at the 95% confidence level? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You missed the question Lee. Did you have trouble understanding it?


freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 6:58pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 11:21pm: freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 9:52pm: Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 8:03pm: That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous. So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics? I don't  think scientists are saying it. It's  mostly  activists, journalists, propagandists. The scientists who said that sort of thing - Manne, for example - are discredited. The modelling is incomplete because the understanding is incomplete, that's  why its predictive power  is negligible. Statistics is selective and climate change is statistics. Human co2 us negligible in the atmospheric economy of gases. Its power to overrule all other factors is a risible fantasy. Hubris. So scientists are not actually saying that anthropogenic GHG emissions change the climate? Or were you oblivious to the mindless hysterics in your own post? Quote: The scientists who said that sort of thing - Manne, for example - are discredited. Pseudo-intellectual hysterics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph#Mann,_Bradley_and_Hughes_1998 More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 7:10pm:

You missed the question Lee.

I didn't miss it. I was so amused bu your reference to Mann Bradley Hughes. Seeing as how Mann got his arse handed to him on a plate when he lost the Canadian libel suit against Tim Ball who accused him of fraud. ;D ;D ;D ;D

So now to the question.

The answer is how much?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You are being irrational again Lee. He could be a pedophile axe murderer and the evidence would still support his hockey stick graph. Hence my reference to all the other studies that back it up.

Would you like to put aside your hysterics and try for a straight answer? Are you arguing that scientists are not even claiming that GHG's affect the climate, or were you so hysterical you did not realise what you said?


Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:21pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 9:52pm: Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 8:03pm: That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous. So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics? I don't  think scientists are saying it.

So scientists are not actually saying that anthropogenic GHG emissions change the climate? Or were you oblivious to the mindless hysterics in your own post?

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 7:43pm:

You are being irrational again Lee. He could be a pedophile axe murderer and the evidence would still support his hockey stick graph.

Then why didn't he provide the evidence that he wasn't a fraud? His "good" name must mean something to him. ;)

The hockeystick graph has been thoroughly debunked by statisticians. It doesn't matter if people use the same methodologies. Tagging thermometer records on to tree ring data is a no-no. Why did he need to do it? Because the last few years didn't support his conclusion. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 7:43pm:

Are you arguing that scientists are not even claiming that GHG's affect the climate, or were you so hysterical you did not realise what you said?

I have always said that the so called GHG's will have an effect. 
lee wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 7:37pm:

The answer is how much?

You are such a denier. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 6:58pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 11:21pm: freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 9:52pm: Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 8:03pm: That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous. So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics? I don't  think scientists are saying it. It's  mostly  activists, journalists, propagandists. The scientists who said that sort of thing - Manne, for example - are discredited. The modelling is incomplete because the understanding is incomplete, that's  why its predictive power  is negligible. Statistics is selective and climate change is statistics. Human co2 us negligible in the atmospheric economy of gases. Its power to overrule all other factors is a risible fantasy. Hubris. So scientists are not actually saying that anthropogenic GHG emissions change the climate? Or were you oblivious to the mindless hysterics in your own post? Quote: The scientists who said that sort of thing - Manne, for example - are discredited. Pseudo-intellectual hysterics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph#Mann,_Bradley_and_Hughes_1998 More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions

The 'dilatory cockwomble' Mann's hockey stick is bollocks. He sued Steyn for saying as much and lost spectacularly.

https://www.steynonline.com/9742/michael-e-mann-loser

"Anthropogenic GHGs change the climate"


This is such a deceptive Molotov/Gobbelsian ruse. It's a lie, deliberately told.

WHAT are ALL the things that impact on the climate?
What of these is solely human excess (do not count your 4% of CO2 in your every exhalation. That's life and you are not guilty of breathing)
What is the hierarchy of impact on the climate of all the influences?
What would the climate be like if there was no human CO2? NOBODY knows, nobody CAN know.
Human CO2 is negligible in the climate economy. Chinese and Indian (and earlier, English) air pollution is spectacular, no doubt. But air pollution is not the same as climate change.



NOBODY can say what the proportion of human influence is because NOBODY knows what ALL the influences are and what each influence contributes - and how - to what the climate turns out to be.


Sterilise Africans, Asians and Latin Americans. The planet will thank you.i

Frank wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 8:10pm:

"Anthropogenic GHGs change the climate" This is such a deceptive Molotov/Gobbelsian ruse. It's a lie, deliberately told. WHAT are ALL the things that impact on the climate? What of these is solely human excess (do not count your 4% of CO2 in your every exhalation. That's life and you are not guilty of breathing) What is the hierarchy of impact on the climate of all the influences? What would the climate be like if there was no human CO2? NOBODY knows, nobody CAN know. Human CO2 is negligible in the climate economy. Chinese and Indian (and earlier, English) air pollution is spectacular, no doubt. But air pollution is not the same as climate change. NOBODY can say what the proportion of human influence is because NOBODY knows what ALL the influences are and what each influence contributes - and how - to what the climate turns out to be. Sterilise Africans, Asians and Latin Americans. The planet will thank you.

"I don't understand the science, therefore no-one does."

Robot wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 8:30pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 2nd, 2019 at 8:10pm: "Anthropogenic GHGs change the climate" This is such a deceptive Molotov/Gobbelsian ruse. It's a lie, deliberately told. WHAT are ALL the things that impact on the climate? What of these is solely human excess (do not count your 4% of CO2 in your every exhalation. That's life and you are not guilty of breathing) What is the hierarchy of impact on the climate of all the influences? What would the climate be like if there was no human CO2? NOBODY knows, nobody CAN know. Human CO2 is negligible in the climate economy. Chinese and Indian (and earlier, English) air pollution is spectacular, no doubt. But air pollution is not the same as climate change. NOBODY can say what the proportion of human influence is because NOBODY knows what ALL the influences are and what each influence contributes - and how - to what the climate turns out to be. Sterilise Africans, Asians and Latin Americans. The planet will thank you. "I don't understand the science, therefore no-one does."

Well, YOU don't.

Robot meant climate seance. ;)

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:21pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 9:52pm: Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 8:03pm: That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous. So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics? I don't  think scientists are saying it.

Is this what your "the answer is how much" dribble is referring to Lee?

Was your assertion that it is preposterous to suggest that anthropogenic CO2 emissions affect the climate, and that no scientists are saying it does, nothing more than mindless hysterics that you uttered without even realising?

Or do you stand by the claim?

Or will you just run away from the question again?

Do you think the wikipedia article is lying when it says this about mann's work?

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 9:45pm:

Do you think the wikipedia article is lying when it says this about mann's work?

Why is it that educational institutions say don't use wiki? it is not because everyone can use it.

"It goes without saying that students use Wikipedia extensively, probably more than any other social group. Although the website's founder Jimmy Wales once warned readers not to use the website for academic purposes, American research shows that the majority of students browse its pages when researching essays."

"Academics discredit the website for several reasons: articles can be written by anyone, not necessarily a world expert; editing and regulation are imperfect and a reliance on Wikipedia can discourage students from engaging with genuine academic writing. Vandalism is also common. There are numerous examples of politicians and public figures amending articles about themselves to erase unfavourable material. Wikipedia's own incomplete list of hoaxes makes interesting and comical reading (I particularly appreciated the fictitious "Township of Asstree, Tennessee")."

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/may/13/should-university-students-use-wikipedia

From the garudian so it must be true. ;)

And wiki still promotes MBH DESPITE the drubbing Mann got in court. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 9:45pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 11:21pm: freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 9:52pm: Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 8:03pm: That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous. So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics? I don't  think scientists are saying it. Is this what your "the answer is how much" dribble is referring to Lee? Was your assertion that it is preposterous to suggest that anthropogenic CO2 emissions affect the climate, and that no scientists are saying it does, nothing more than mindless hysterics that you uttered without even realising? Or do you stand by the claim? Or will you just run away from the question again? Do you think the wikipedia article is lying when it says this about mann's work? More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions

It is preposterous to say that antropohenic CO2 causes climate change.

https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/josh-mikes-nature-trick.jpg

Frank wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 10:59pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 2nd, 2019 at 9:45pm: Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 11:21pm: freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 9:52pm: Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 8:03pm: That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous. So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics? I don't  think scientists are saying it. Is this what your "the answer is how much" dribble is referring to Lee? Was your assertion that it is preposterous to suggest that anthropogenic CO2 emissions affect the climate, and that no scientists are saying it does, nothing more than mindless hysterics that you uttered without even realising? Or do you stand by the claim? Or will you just run away from the question again? Do you think the wikipedia article is lying when it says this about mann's work? More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions It is preposterous to say that antropohenic CO2 causes climate change.

That's why it's scientifically proven, dear boy.

Preposterous, innit.

English is your second language, no?

Karnal wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2019 at 5:10pm:

That's why it's scientifically proven, dear boy.

In the models only. And the models aren't science. There are too many parameters where they use "forcings". ;)

Frank wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 10:59pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 2nd, 2019 at 9:45pm: Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 11:21pm: freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 9:52pm: Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2019 at 8:03pm: That human-produced CO2 changes the climate at all, let alone 'catastrophically' is preposterous. So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics? I don't  think scientists are saying it. Is this what your "the answer is how much" dribble is referring to Lee? Was your assertion that it is preposterous to suggest that anthropogenic CO2 emissions affect the climate, and that no scientists are saying it does, nothing more than mindless hysterics that you uttered without even realising? Or do you stand by the claim? Or will you just run away from the question again? Do you think the wikipedia article is lying when it says this about mann's work? More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions It is preposterous to say that antropohenic CO2 causes climate change.

Are scientists saying it does?

lee wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2019 at 5:29pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 5:10pm: That's why it's scientifically proven, dear boy. In the models only. And the models aren't science. There are too many parameters where they use "forcings". ;)

Not in the models only, dear. If you increase CO2 levels over time, the temperature goes up, the acid levels in the sea rise, a whole range of balanced phenomena shift, like the El Niño effect between the continents, causing new weather effects and reactions. 

Of course they use "models". We got to the moon using mathematics alone.

Karnal wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2019 at 11:59pm:

lee wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 5:29pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 5:10pm: That's why it's scientifically proven, dear boy. In the models only. And the models aren't science. There are too many parameters where they use "forcings". ;) Not in the models only, dear. If you increase CO2 levels over time, the temperature goes up, the acid levels in the sea rise, a whole range of balanced phenomena shift, like the El Niño effect between the continents, causing new weather effects and reactions.  Of course they use "models". We got to the moon using mathematics alone.

Fossil fuel emissions as the climate ‘control knob’ is a simple and seductive idea. However this is a misleading oversimplification, since climate can shift naturally in unexpected ways. Apart from uncertainties in future emissions, we are still facing a factor of 3 or more uncertainty in the sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We have no idea how natural climate variability (solar, volcanoes, ocean circulations) will play out in the 21st century, and whether or not natural variability will dominate over manmade warming.

We still don’t have a realistic assessment of how a warmer climate will impact us and whether it is ‘dangerous.’ We don’t have a good understanding of how warming will influence extreme weather events.  Land use and exploitation by humans is a far bigger issue than climate change for species extinction and ecosystem health. Local sea level rise has many causes, and is dominated by sinking from land use in many of the most vulnerable locations.

We have been told that the science of climate change is ‘settled’. However, in climate science there has been a tension between the drive towards a scientific ‘consensus’ to support policy making, versus exploratory research that pushes forward the knowledge frontier. Climate science is characterized by a rapidly evolving knowledge base and disagreement among experts. Predictions of 21st century climate change are characterized by deep uncertainty.

Nevertheless, activist scientists and the media seize upon each extreme weather event as having the fingerprints of manmade climate change — ignoring the analyses of more sober scientists showing periods of even more extreme weather in the first half of the 20th century, when fossil fuel emissions were much smaller.

Alarming press releases are issued about each new climate model prediction of future catastrophes from famine, mass migrations, catastrophic fires, etc. Yet, these press releases don’t mention that these predicted catastrophes are associated with highly implausible assumptions about how much we might actually emit over the course of the 21st century. Further, issues such as famine, mass migrations and wildfires are caused primarily by government policies and ineptitude, lack of wealth and land use policies. Climate change matters, but it’s outweighed by other factors in terms of influencing human well being.
https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/02/madrid/#more-25458

Karnal wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2019 at 11:59pm:

If you increase CO2 levels over time, the temperature goes up, the acid levels in the sea rise, a whole range of balanced phenomena shift, like the El Niño effect between the continents, causing new weather effects and reactions.

Poor petal. The level of CO2 has limited effect on temperature, the acid levels in the ocean don't rise there is too much calcium carbonate in shell detritus, chalk etc that prevents it. The White Cliffs of Dover are a perfect example and they haven't dissolved as yet. And the changing of alkalinity happens over hours; each and every day. There is no acid level in the oceans. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You do know El Nino and la Nina have been around for donkey's years? And La Nino's are the only spike in temperature?

Even Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA GISS says global temperatures can only be estimated to about 0.5ºC and yet half the world cries when the average temperature goes up by about 0.001ºC.

But perhaps you have a link to something to prove me wrong.

Frank do you really think scientists are not saying CO2 emissions cause climate change?

lee wrote on Dec 4^th, 2019 at 11:47am:

Karnal wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 11:59pm: If you increase CO2 levels over time, the temperature goes up, the acid levels in the sea rise, a whole range of balanced phenomena shift, like the El Niño effect between the continents, causing new weather effects and reactions.  Poor petal. The level of CO2 has limited effect on temperature, the acid levels in the ocean don't rise there is too much calcium carbonate in shell detritus, chalk etc that prevents it. The White Cliffs of Dover are a perfect example and they haven't dissolved as yet. And the changing of alkalinity happens over hours; each and every day. There is no acid level in the oceans. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You do know El Nino and la Nina have been around for donkey's years? And La Nino's are the only spike in temperature? Even Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA GISS says global temperatures can only be estimated to about 0.5ºC and yet half the world cries when the average temperature goes up by about 0.001ºC. But perhaps you have a link to something to prove me wrong.

Of course not. You have no link to prove you right. You want one from silly old moi?

You haven't posted any links yet, dear. Why begin now?

Karnal wrote on Dec 4^th, 2019 at 9:41pm:

You have no link to prove you right

The sea is alkaline. You must be able to post something saying it is acid. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2019 at 8:21pm:

Frank do you really think scientists are not saying CO2 emissions cause climate change?

It's just a slip, FD. When the old boy said preposterous, he meant unanimous.

It's not his fault. English is his second language, you know.

We're all friends here.

lee wrote on Dec 4^th, 2019 at 9:47pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 4th, 2019 at 9:41pm: You have no link to prove you right The sea is alkaline. You mus be able to post something saying it is acid. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You have a chuckle, dear, it'll do you some good. We all need a good laugh from time to time.

Would you like to rebut another graph?

Take your pick. You go, girl.

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2019 at 8:21pm:

Frank do you really think scientists are not saying CO2 emissions cause climate change?

Yes. Only fools say such ridiculously simplistic things.

CO2 is not the cause of climate or its changes. There are a great many other factors that make up climate and therefore change it. To single out CO2, and man-made CO2 (a smallish proportion of the total CO2) as the cause of climate and its changes is preposterous.

Has the media invented all the research into the effect of c02 on climate?

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 11:53am:

Has the media invented all the research into the effect of c02 on climate?

Give us an example of what you take to be a representative scientific research paper.  And if you do not dismiss the idea that the climate is also influenced by natural factors  - what percentage of any climate change is attributed to man and what percentage to natural variability by the science?






Elsewhere in climate news:
Latest UN climate report shows this month so far has seen the scariest climate pronouncements on record.

Frank wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 12:01pm:

what percentage of any climate change is attributed to man

Greater than 100%. If not for human industrial activity, the climate would be cooling.

Robot wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 3:21pm:

Greater than 100%. If not for human industrial activity, the climate would be cooling.

Reference?

No natural variation whatsoever? The lack of science is deep in this one. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Climate changes both up and down.

Also his maths. greater than 100%? get your discount docket here. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 3:37pm:

Robot wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 3:21pm: Greater than 100%. If not for human industrial activity, the climate would be cooling. Reference?

It involves computer models, lee. Wouldn't want to trigger you.


lee wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 3:37pm:

No natural variation whatsoever? Climate changes both up and down.

"You say the natural change would be down, but what about natural change? There's natural change, you know."

And Whitey said to a world covered in Darkies.
"Give us half the world or we'll destroy it all with Nukes and Pollution!"

The mindless hysterics are the province of the climate-change pushers, imo

(most of them employed by the climate-change industry … for peanuts)

Robot wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 3:46pm:

"You say the natural change would be down, but what about natural change? There's natural change, you know."

Wow. natural change would be natural change? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 4:43pm:

Robot wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 3:46pm: "You say the natural change would be down, but what about natural change? There's natural change, you know." Wow. natural change would be natural change? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yeah that's a classic

Frank wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 12:01pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 11:53am: Has the media invented all the research into the effect of c02 on climate? Give us an example of what you take to be a representative scientific research paper.  And if you do not dismiss the idea that the climate is also influenced by natural factors  - what percentage of any climate change is attributed to man and what percentage to natural variability by the science? Elsewhere in climate news: Latest UN climate report shows this month so far has seen the scariest climate pronouncements on record.

I doubt there is such a thing as a representative paper. Scientists like to be individuals.

Has the media invented all the research into the effect of c02 on climate?

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 7:14pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 12:01pm: freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 11:53am: Has the media invented all the research into the effect of c02 on climate? Give us an example of what you take to be a representative scientific research paper.  And if you do not dismiss the idea that the climate is also influenced by natural factors  - what percentage of any climate change is attributed to man and what percentage to natural variability by the science? Elsewhere in climate news: Latest UN climate report shows this month so far has seen the scariest climate pronouncements on record. I doubt there is such a thing as a representative paper. Scientists like to be individuals.

I thought there was a scientific consensus - meaning they all agreed - sorry, 97% agreed.  No longer? All diverse now? Diversity is their strength, too??

(Consensus = from Latin, ‘agreement’, from consens- ‘agreed’, from the verb consentire.)

Anyone step outside tonight, late dusk, to look at the skies?

Shame.  If you had, you'd have seen the parallel stripes of Chemtrails laid above the 87% non-natural bush fire smoke and debris

Yep.  The country's burnt like toast.  Media's making a bomb out of the photos

too bad for the animals, huh, not to mention the humans upon whom this is being inflicted

Chemtrails.  Satanists.  A good downpour would damp down the smoke and grant relief

but no.  bugger humans and animals say the Satanists.  It must burn.  Like Cali had to burn

'No rain until after Christmas' blares the headlines

'Is this the new normal' ask the headlines

ZOG Oz

can't wait until the Chinese take over

Hope they hang and dismember oz politicians and their Collins Street bosses

and toss their guts to the pigs

There's climate change alright.  Man made, too

using HAARP and Chems and other geoengineering malarky

Frank wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:01pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 7:14pm: Frank wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 12:01pm: freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 11:53am: Has the media invented all the research into the effect of c02 on climate? Give us an example of what you take to be a representative scientific research paper.  And if you do not dismiss the idea that the climate is also influenced by natural factors  - what percentage of any climate change is attributed to man and what percentage to natural variability by the science? Elsewhere in climate news: Latest UN climate report shows this month so far has seen the scariest climate pronouncements on record. I doubt there is such a thing as a representative paper. Scientists like to be individuals. I thought there was a scientific consensus - meaning they all agreed - sorry, 97% agreed.  No longer? All diverse now? Diversity is their strength, too?? (Consensus = from Latin, ‘agreement’, from consens- ‘agreed’, from the verb consentire.)

They also like to think they are swayed by the evidence - hence the 97%.

Why are you suddenly getting all shy about the extent of your delusion? Has the media invented all the research into the effect of CO2 on climate?

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:30pm:

They also like to think they are swayed by the evidence - hence the 97%.

What 97% petal?

Cook et al? ;D ;D

Doran and Zimmerman? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Anderegg? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Naomi Oreskes ? Nah she got 100%. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

What 97% petal?

That's the percentage of scientists that Frank thinks say things that scientists do not say.

Hysterical, isn't it?

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:30pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 9:01pm: freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 7:14pm: Frank wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 12:01pm: freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 11:53am: Has the media invented all the research into the effect of c02 on climate? Give us an example of what you take to be a representative scientific research paper.  And if you do not dismiss the idea that the climate is also influenced by natural factors  - what percentage of any climate change is attributed to man and what percentage to natural variability by the science? Elsewhere in climate news: Latest UN climate report shows this month so far has seen the scariest climate pronouncements on record. I doubt there is such a thing as a representative paper. Scientists like to be individuals. I thought there was a scientific consensus - meaning they all agreed - sorry, 97% agreed.  No longer? All diverse now? Diversity is their strength, too?? (Consensus = from Latin, ‘agreement’, from consens- ‘agreed’, from the verb consentire.) They also like to think they are swayed by the evidence - hence the 97%. Why are you suddenly getting all shy about the extent of your delusion? Has the media invented all the research into the effect of CO2 on climate?

So there is no representative scientific paper  - but there is a 97% scientific consensus about human CO2 ultimately controlling the climate.  Is that a fact or an opinion? 

In any case, research into CO2 is not the same as identifying CO2 as the cause, let alone human-made CO2 as the cause of the way the climate is through the ages.

You are as sloppy in your thinking as the media, FD. Too much Granuiad?

So the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

Are we getting close to drawing a line in your delusions?

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:55pm:

So the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate? Are we getting close to drawing a line in your delusions?

What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD?  If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate.

But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion.  This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest.


I think you would greatly benefit from looking at what an eminent scientist has said to the relevant US Senate hearing - as well as the other submission at this link. It would straighten your thinking even if not change your mind:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/08/senate-hearing-data-or-dogma-2/

From Franks link - Judith Curry


Quote:

Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: “Don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.” That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus. I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues. I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy. What have I concluded from this assessment? Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evz28YKCPCo

Quote:

How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties? Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community. As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Grijalva, in a recent letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech. There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests. In this politicized environment, advocating for CO2 emissions reductions is becoming the default, expected position for climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity – without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.

Frank wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 10:00pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 9:55pm: So the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate? Are we getting close to drawing a line in your delusions? What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD?  If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate. But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion.  This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest. I think you would greatly benefit from looking at what an eminent scientist has said to the relevant US Senate hearing - as well as the other submission at this link. It would straighten your thinking even if not change your mind: https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/08/senate-hearing-data-or-dogma-2/

You are lying Frank. And you didn't answer the question.

"On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

Stephen Schneider

freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 11:38am:

Frank wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 10:00pm: freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 9:55pm: So the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate? Are we getting close to drawing a line in your delusions? What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD?  If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate. But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion.  This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest. I think you would greatly benefit from looking at what an eminent scientist has said to the relevant US Senate hearing - as well as the other submission at this link. It would straighten your thinking even if not change your mind: https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/08/senate-hearing-data-or-dogma-2/ You are lying Frank. And you didn't answer the question.

Where's the yawn??

Frank wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 11:55am:

freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2019 at 11:38am: Frank wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 10:00pm: freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 9:55pm: So the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate? Are we getting close to drawing a line in your delusions? What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD?  If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate. But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion.  This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest. I think you would greatly benefit from looking at what an eminent scientist has said to the relevant US Senate hearing - as well as the other submission at this link. It would straighten your thinking even if not change your mind: https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/08/senate-hearing-data-or-dogma-2/ You are lying Frank. And you didn't answer the question. Where's the yawn??

I highlighted your lie. Can you quote me? Or does the truth not matter to skeptics when they get as hysterical as you are?

Instead of running away again, can you clarify if you think the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 7:59pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 6th, 2019 at 11:55am: freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2019 at 11:38am: Frank wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 10:00pm: freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2019 at 9:55pm: So the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate? Are we getting close to drawing a line in your delusions? What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD?  If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate. But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion.  This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest. I think you would greatly benefit from looking at what an eminent scientist has said to the relevant US Senate hearing - as well as the other submission at this link. It would straighten your thinking even if not change your mind: https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/08/senate-hearing-data-or-dogma-2/ You are lying Frank. And you didn't answer the question. Where's the yawn?? I highlighted your lie. Can you quote me? Or does the truth not matter to skeptics when they get as hysterical as you are? Instead of running away again, can you clarify if you think the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

You are sounding like shifty Turdy McTurd. 


CO2 is not the magic knob that controls the climate Man-made CO2 is a very small part of the total CO2 economy in the atmosphere. To what extent does it 'effect the climate' compared to non-human CO2 and all other non human effects?  You never say because you do not know. Nobody does.


There is a lot of research into the effects of human CO2. All of it inconclusive because of the above obvious facts, making most of such research inconclusive from the start - they are looking to PROVE a  POLITICAL point rather than disprove a scientific hypothesis - the latter being the proper scientific method. Hence the political and agit-prop corruption of all 'climate science reporting'.

The media is produced mostly by communication graduates with zero understanding of what they are talking about, be it climate, politics, society, education - anything. They are simply too stupid and uneducated and inexperienced.   They cannot think, they are uncritical, they are of a heard. The corporate media do not get anything right, not elections, no referendums, not the climate.

I highlighted your lie. Can you quote me? Or does the truth not matter to skeptics when they get as hysterical as you are?

Instead of running away again, can you clarify if you think the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

I cannot quote you because you - or any of the other hysterics - have never separated the extent of
1. CO2 versus all other factors impacting the climate
2. Human CO2 compared to all other CO2 within the above consideration.


I cannot quote you about a point which all you hysterics studiously avoid addressing:

What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD?  If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate.

But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion.  This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest.



I have never seen you or any other climate bed-wetter identify the limit of man-made CO2 versus natural CO2. If you/scientists have made such a separation, remind me/us.

So you knew I didn't say it, but you claimed I did anyway?

How is that not lying?

Instead of running away again, can you clarify if you think the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 8:45pm:

So you knew I didn't say it, but you claimed I did anyway? How is that not lying? Instead of running away again, can you clarify if you think the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

I said you didn't  say it because you cannot know , nobody does.

That's  the point, FD. Your hysterics recognises no boundary. You do not know the point where man made  CO2 ends and natural CO2 begins, nor do you know where the effects of CO2 end and all other factors begin.

You simply do not know enough. You are soothsaying.

This is what you said:


Quote:

But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2

Do you understand that this is a lie?

Instead of running away again, can you clarify if you think the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 9:51pm:

Quote: But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 Do you understand that this is a lie?

is it? Don't you put it all on CO2? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No Lee, I only see hysterical climate skeptics taking absurd, absolutist positions here.

Frank wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 8:27pm:

I cannot quote you because you - or any of the other hysterics - have never separated the extent of 1. CO2 versus all other factors impacting the climate 2. Human CO2 compared to all other CO2 within the above consideration. I cannot quote you about a point which all you hysterics studiously avoid addressing: What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD?  If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate. But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion.  This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest. I have never seen you or any other climate bed-wetter identify the limit of man-made CO2 versus natural CO2. If you/scientists have made such a separation, remind me/us.

shouldnt you be asking Greta    isnt she the current expert on everything CLIMATE?...

cods wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 8:16am:

Frank wrote on Dec 6th, 2019 at 8:27pm: I cannot quote you because you - or any of the other hysterics - have never separated the extent of 1. CO2 versus all other factors impacting the climate 2. Human CO2 compared to all other CO2 within the above consideration. I cannot quote you about a point which all you hysterics studiously avoid addressing: What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD?  If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate. But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion.  This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest. I have never seen you or any other climate bed-wetter identify the limit of man-made CO2 versus natural CO2. If you/scientists have made such a separation, remind me/us. shouldnt you be asking Greta    isnt she the current expert on everything CLIMATE?...

Well she is at least an expert on CO2 .... because she is the only person on the planet that can actually "see" it.

She should be able to answer all FD questions about what is natural CO2 & what is man made CO2 .....

you know anything man made is synthetic & never looks like the natural product.  ::) ;D ;D

Gnads wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 8:26am:

cods wrote on Dec 7th, 2019 at 8:16am: Frank wrote on Dec 6th, 2019 at 8:27pm: I cannot quote you because you - or any of the other hysterics - have never separated the extent of 1. CO2 versus all other factors impacting the climate 2. Human CO2 compared to all other CO2 within the above consideration. I cannot quote you about a point which all you hysterics studiously avoid addressing: What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD?  If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate. But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion.  This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest. I have never seen you or any other climate bed-wetter identify the limit of man-made CO2 versus natural CO2. If you/scientists have made such a separation, remind me/us. shouldnt you be asking Greta    isnt she the current expert on everything CLIMATE?... Well she is at least an expert on CO2 .... because she is the only person on the planet that can actually "see" it. She should be able to answer all FD questions about what is natural CO2 & what is man made CO2 ..... you know anything man made is synthetic & never looks like the natural product.  ::) ;D ;D

My only questions have been about just how deluded and hysterical you lot are.

freediver wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 8:34am:

Gnads wrote on Dec 7th, 2019 at 8:26am: cods wrote on Dec 7th, 2019 at 8:16am: Frank wrote on Dec 6th, 2019 at 8:27pm: I cannot quote you because you - or any of the other hysterics - have never separated the extent of 1. CO2 versus all other factors impacting the climate 2. Human CO2 compared to all other CO2 within the above consideration. I cannot quote you about a point which all you hysterics studiously avoid addressing: What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD?  If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate. But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion.  This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest. I have never seen you or any other climate bed-wetter identify the limit of man-made CO2 versus natural CO2. If you/scientists have made such a separation, remind me/us. shouldnt you be asking Greta    isnt she the current expert on everything CLIMATE?... Well she is at least an expert on CO2 .... because she is the only person on the planet that can actually "see" it. She should be able to answer all FD questions about what is natural CO2 & what is man made CO2 ..... you know anything man made is synthetic & never looks like the natural product.  ::) ;D ;D My only questions have been about just how deluded and hysterical you lot are.

Spec Savers? So you can have a good look at yourself in the mirror...no?

freediver wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 8:34am:

Gnads wrote on Dec 7th, 2019 at 8:26am: cods wrote on Dec 7th, 2019 at 8:16am: Frank wrote on Dec 6th, 2019 at 8:27pm: I cannot quote you because you - or any of the other hysterics - have never separated the extent of 1. CO2 versus all other factors impacting the climate 2. Human CO2 compared to all other CO2 within the above consideration. I cannot quote you about a point which all you hysterics studiously avoid addressing: What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD?  If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate. But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion.  This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest. I have never seen you or any other climate bed-wetter identify the limit of man-made CO2 versus natural CO2. If you/scientists have made such a separation, remind me/us. shouldnt you be asking Greta    isnt she the current expert on everything CLIMATE?... Well she is at least an expert on CO2 .... because she is the only person on the planet that can actually "see" it. She should be able to answer all FD questions about what is natural CO2 & what is man made CO2 ..... you know anything man made is synthetic & never looks like the natural product.  ::) ;D ;D My only questions have been about just how deluded and hysterical you lot are.

YOU LOT..... is that another terrorist group?...


or do you just believe those who disagree with YOU are just Mindless?....sounds like a brian complex to me..

I am always right... if you dont agree with me I will INSULT YOU..so there!

Frank wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 8:27pm:

I cannot quote you because you - or any of the other hysterics - have never separated the extent of 1. CO2 versus all other factors impacting the climate 2. Human CO2 compared to all other CO2 within the above consideration. I cannot quote you about a point which all you hysterics studiously avoid addressing: What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD?  If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate. But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion.  This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest. I have never seen you or any other climate bed-wetter identify the limit of man-made CO2 versus natural CO2. If you/scientists have made such a separation, remind me/us.

Frank, like most denialists you seem to have no understanding of the carbon cycle.
natural emissions of CO₂ v natural absorption of CO₂ gives us a planet that is comfortably warm enough to live on.
The human emissions are ADDITIONAL. These accumulate as evidenced by the rising CO₂ levels detacted in our atmosphere.

A lot of you talk about "natural variability" as some sort of explanation, but it isn't. Climate doesn't change for no reason. CO₂ is a well understood greenhouse gas and the levels are rising due to human emissions.

(now I just have to wait for some stupid response from lee)

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 9:35am:

Frank wrote on Dec 6th, 2019 at 8:27pm: I cannot quote you because you - or any of the other hysterics - have never separated the extent of 1. CO2 versus all other factors impacting the climate 2. Human CO2 compared to all other CO2 within the above consideration. I cannot quote you about a point which all you hysterics studiously avoid addressing: What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD?  If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate. But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion.  This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest. I have never seen you or any other climate bed-wetter identify the limit of man-made CO2 versus natural CO2. If you/scientists have made such a separation, remind me/us. Frank, like most denialists you seem to have no understanding of the carbon cycle. natural emissions of CO2 v natural absorption of CO2 gives us a planet that is comfortably warm enough to live on. The human emissions are ADDITIONAL. These accumulate as evidenced by the rising CO2 levels detacted in our atmosphere. A lot of you talk about "natural variability" as some sort of explanation, but it isn't. Climate doesn't change for no reason. CO2 is a well understood greenhouse gas and the levels are rising due to human emissions. (now I just have to wait for some stupid response from lee)

Stupid? You whistle I'll point.  ::)

Gnads wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 8:39am:

freediver wrote on Dec 7th, 2019 at 8:34am: Gnads wrote on Dec 7th, 2019 at 8:26am: cods wrote on Dec 7th, 2019 at 8:16am: Frank wrote on Dec 6th, 2019 at 8:27pm: I cannot quote you because you - or any of the other hysterics - have never separated the extent of 1. CO2 versus all other factors impacting the climate 2. Human CO2 compared to all other CO2 within the above consideration. I cannot quote you about a point which all you hysterics studiously avoid addressing: What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD?  If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate. But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion.  This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest. I have never seen you or any other climate bed-wetter identify the limit of man-made CO2 versus natural CO2. If you/scientists have made such a separation, remind me/us. shouldnt you be asking Greta    isnt she the current expert on everything CLIMATE?... Well she is at least an expert on CO2 .... because she is the only person on the planet that can actually "see" it. She should be able to answer all FD questions about what is natural CO2 & what is man made CO2 ..... you know anything man made is synthetic & never looks like the natural product.  ::) ;D ;D My only questions have been about just how deluded and hysterical you lot are. Spec Savers? So you can have a good look at yourself in the mirror...no?

I can quote Frank saying that C02 emissions have no effect on climate at all. I can quote assorted idiotic mindless hysterics from you and just about every other skeptic on here.

Feel free to hold that mirror up to me.