Australian Politics Forum - IPCC 95% sure about AGW

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 137955
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #120 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 5:43pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 5:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 4:27pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:32pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:06pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 2:49pm:

Maybe you should talk about the science then. I shouldn't be so hard on Ajax. At least he tries to do that.

I've dealt with many alarmists.

What I have learned is that it's a complete waste of time discussing the science with them They simply do not wish to listen to anything that differs from their own preconceived, arrogant views.

As the previous poster said: it's more like a religion with you alarmists. In all my years, I have never encountered a more closed-minded group of people (except perhaps religious fundamentalists).

Ajax will learn soon enough.

Just skim through the latest IPCC Report and say that it's nothing to do with science while maintaining a straight face.

I never said that the IPCC Report has nothing to do with science.

However, alarmists like you and the monkey boy manage to treat it like a religious document.

Being a researcher myself ...

... So when you gallop in here with your Bolt sunglasses on ...

You might want to do a bit of research on the English language.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1380325015/112#112

So one of your major sources for research is OZPOLITIC?

I take that back:

You might want to do a bit an awful lot of research on the English language.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #121 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:08pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 2:21pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 2:11pm:

Peccary is a bit of an outcast being a lefty "denier" sceptic ...

And I wouldn't have it any other way.

This issue isn't about partisan politics, or consensus: it's about science.

Greggery is still trying to own words like a tryhard chess player!

How boring is the wine getting mate???

How many people kick the bucket finally realising red wine is poo. Oh, switch to the white poo then ay love?? Yeh good one- a toffee nose for a reputation!

The kids must love you for company ay buddy!??!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #122 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:11pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:25pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:15pm:

Just skim through the latest IPCC Report and say that it's nothing to do with science while maintaining a straight face.

The latest IPCC report is a political document not a scientific document, it has absolutely no scientific basis at all with regard to real science.
Just watch the Donna Framboise interview at the 50 to 1 project , if you still have faith in the IPCC after watching that then you may need professional help Grin

Innocent can't define "politics"

** Don't cry buddy will ya!!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #123 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:23pm

# wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 8:08am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 1:34am:

... (although I can understand those that don't care)

I've seen enough of consequences, the risk of which global warming will probably increase, that I really can't understand not caring. I'm particularly offended by those, like greggerypeccary, who evidently think it's fun to play games with the issue.

They think being hardcore bean counters denying all responsibility makes the world system stronger! They believe if something has to be done it will be done regardless of whatever they do or say.

Basically, they think words don't matter- none of them believe in religion of course even though they use it to promote their supposedly pious nature.

Why any earthly government official would try to use their belief in a heavenly government to promote themselves in this world is rightfully questioned on it at all times... Shocked

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #124 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:53pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:23pm:

# wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 8:08am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 1:34am:

... (although I can understand those that don't care)

I've seen enough of consequences, the risk of which global warming will probably increase, that I really can't understand not caring. I'm particularly offended by those, like greggerypeccary, who evidently think it's fun to play games with the issue.

They think being hardcore bean counters denying all responsibility makes the world system stronger! They believe if something has to be done it will be done regardless of whatever they do or say.

Basically, they think words don't matter- none of them believe in religion of course even though they use it to promote their supposedly pious nature.

Why any earthly government official would try to use their belief in a heavenly government to promote themselves in this world is rightfully questioned on it at all times... Shocked

And by hardcore beancounters we mean little John Howard who ended up overseeing the Biggest spending federal government in Australia's history. Even though he was criticised for not spending on infrastructure. Amazing feats of self delusional corruption and immorality these right wing corporatized conservatives

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #125 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:55pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 2:21pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 2:11pm:

Peccary is a bit of an outcast being a lefty "denier" sceptic ...

And I wouldn't have it any other way.

This issue isn't about partisan politics, or consensus: it's about science.

Greggery is still trying to own words like a tryhard chess player!

How boring is the wine getting mate???

How many people kick the bucket finally realising red wine is poo. Oh, switch to the white poo then ay love?? Yeh good one- a toffee nose for a reputation!

The kids must love you for company ay buddy!??!

He has a point there little Greggy

You are up against the ropes now and cant defend yourself very well

I told you so!

See what happens when you follow the path of Beelzebub?

Back to top

monkeysmoking1_002.jpg (17 KB | 30 )

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #126 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 8:03pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:53pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:23pm:

# wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 8:08am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 1:34am:

... (although I can understand those that don't care)

I've seen enough of consequences, the risk of which global warming will probably increase, that I really can't understand not caring. I'm particularly offended by those, like greggerypeccary, who evidently think it's fun to play games with the issue.

They think being hardcore bean counters denying all responsibility makes the world system stronger! They believe if something has to be done it will be done regardless of whatever they do or say.

Basically, they think words don't matter- none of them believe in religion of course even though they use it to promote their supposedly pious nature.

Why any earthly government official would try to use their belief in a heavenly government to promote themselves in this world is rightfully questioned on it at all times... Shocked

And by hardcore beancounters we mean little John Howard who ended up overseeing the Biggest spending federal government in Australia's history. Even though he was criticised for not spending on infrastructure. Amazing feats of self delusional corruption and immorality these right wing corporatized conservatives

No one likes Johnny: he did recognise that for the Liberal party to keep itself electable it needed to recognise climate change early in the picture however.

Shocked

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #127 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 8:31pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 8:03pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:53pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:23pm:

# wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 8:08am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 1:34am:

... (although I can understand those that don't care)

I've seen enough of consequences, the risk of which global warming will probably increase, that I really can't understand not caring. I'm particularly offended by those, like greggerypeccary, who evidently think it's fun to play games with the issue.

They think being hardcore bean counters denying all responsibility makes the world system stronger! They believe if something has to be done it will be done regardless of whatever they do or say.

Basically, they think words don't matter- none of them believe in religion of course even though they use it to promote their supposedly pious nature.

Why any earthly government official would try to use their belief in a heavenly government to promote themselves in this world is rightfully questioned on it at all times... Shocked

And by hardcore beancounters we mean little John Howard who ended up overseeing the Biggest spending federal government in Australia's history. Even though he was criticised for not spending on infrastructure. Amazing feats of self delusional corruption and immorality these right wing corporatized conservatives

No one likes Johnny: he did recognise that for the Liberal party to keep itself electable it needed to recognise climate change early in the picture however.

Shocked

Remember those glory days?

When the only 3 nations NOT to ratify Kyoto were Russia, Australia and the USA. Then Russia signed on to Kyoto which left Howard and Bush as the only denialist governments in the world.

Then Rudd was elected in 2007 and did the unthinkable by signing Kyoto leaving the good old USA who has still yet to join the civilised world.

Amazing that War mongering US military fascist imperialised corporatized scandal of a nation even had the AUDACITY to attend the Copenhagen meeting and try to route it with its Obama hypocrisy and double talk.

What a world we live - wrong people in charge, wrong people puling the purse strings

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #128 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 8:44pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 8:31pm:

Remember those glory days?

When the only 3 nations NOT to ratify Kyoto were Russia, Australia and the USA. Then Russia signed on to Kyoto which left Howard and Bush as the only denialist governments in the world.

Then Rudd was elected in 2007 and did the unthinkable by signing Kyoto leaving the good old USA who has still yet to join the civilised world.

Amazing that War mongering US military fascist imperialised corporatized scandal of a nation even had the AUDACITY to attend the Copenhagen meeting and try to route it with its Obama hypocrisy and double talk.

What a world we live - wrong people in charge, wrong people puling the purse strings

So he didn't ratify it: that is simply them acknowledging climate change whilst keeping some image of the hard nosed decision maker image alive in the eyes of the tryhard upper middle-class bean counters amongst us.

It's all image: the point I was making is that Howard had to acknowledge it to some degree for the Libs to keep a credible image alive. The point you are making is that that also had to keep the hard nosed tryhard image alive to entice all the tryhard upper middle-class to keep voting for them.

It's always a balance: it's the very same balance between nerd and tuffguy that we all make every second every day.

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Innocent bystander

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #129 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 8:53pm

Just be thankfull that at the end of the day all of this man made climate change horsesh#t is a bunch of crap, another five years of no warming should see it off, of course we will still be stuck with the same f#ckwit believers, just as surely as we are stuck with seventh day adventists that want to bleed to death but f#ckwittery knows no bounds, thats how the whole global warming scare got off the ground to start with Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #130 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 8:57pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 8:44pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 8:31pm:

Remember those glory days?

When the only 3 nations NOT to ratify Kyoto were Russia, Australia and the USA. Then Russia signed on to Kyoto which left Howard and Bush as the only denialist governments in the world.

Then Rudd was elected in 2007 and did the unthinkable by signing Kyoto leaving the good old USA who has still yet to join the civilised world.

Amazing that War mongering US military fascist imperialised corporatized scandal of a nation even had the AUDACITY to attend the Copenhagen meeting and try to route it with its Obama hypocrisy and double talk.

What a world we live - wrong people in charge, wrong people puling the purse strings

So he didn't ratify it: that is simply them acknowledging climate change whilst keeping some image of the hard nosed decision maker image alive in the eyes of the tryhard upper middle-class bean counters amongst us.

It's all image: the point I was making is that Howard had to acknowledge it to some degree for the Libs to keep a credible image alive. The point you are making is that that also had to keep the hard nosed tryhard image alive to entice all the tryhard upper middle-class to keep voting for them.

It's always a balance: it's the very same balance between nerd and tuffguy that we all make every second every day.

Howards acknowledgement of AGW amounted to him pushing Turnbull forward as a moderately reasonable Liberal party clown who made some conservative rhetoric about Australia doing something about curbing carbon emissions - like shoving char in the ground

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #131 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:02pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 4:27pm:

Actually I don't bother too much with the IPCC reports. The IPCC reports tend to be too conservative due to their numerous inputs. Their conclusions are generally diluted and conservative.

Being a researcher myself I have access to numerous scientific data bases that have excellent search tools. I generally base my assessment of scientific theories and their supporting evidence on the peer reviewed literature and it is this approach that has led me to feeling VERY concerned about AGW, and the serious climate, environmental and ecological disasters that await humanity if Carbon releases aren't mitigated substantially.

The latest IPCC report is worth reading, although I agree that it has been hijacked by politicians and is considerably watered down - particularly the non technical parts that they actually understand. I can see the frustration in many of the mainstream climatologists.

I also have databases at my disposal.

You have to read between the lines to establish that when China cleans up its sulphate aerosol (DMS) emissions, the predicted warming will eventuate. Currently, the observed temperatures are in the lower range of predictions, with perhaps one or two points outside the error bands. Of course at a 95% confidence level, 2.5% of observations falling outside the 95% limits is to be expected.

I don't accept every finding in that report. I challenge every finding.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Innocent bystander

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #132 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:12pm

Did you know that atmospheric co2 levels are at historical lows and if they got down to 150ppm life on Earth would cease, did you know that all plant and animal life developed during a period of far greater co2 content, are you all aware that life on Earth flourished during times when co2 content was 2000 ppm, did you know that humans can survive co2 levels of 5000 ppm?, f#ck me dead how did people become so scientifically illiterate, probably because they let their political views overwhelm their scientific views thats why.

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #133 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:19pm

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:02pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 4:27pm:

Actually I don't bother too much with the IPCC reports. The IPCC reports tend to be too conservative due to their numerous inputs. Their conclusions are generally diluted and conservative.

Being a researcher myself I have access to numerous scientific data bases that have excellent search tools. I generally base my assessment of scientific theories and their supporting evidence on the peer reviewed literature and it is this approach that has led me to feeling VERY concerned about AGW, and the serious climate, environmental and ecological disasters that await humanity if Carbon releases aren't mitigated substantially.

The latest IPCC report is worth reading, although I agree that it has been hijacked by politicians and is considerably watered down - particularly the non technical parts that they actually understand. I can see the frustration in many of the mainstream climatologists.

I also have databases at my disposal.

You have to read between the lines to establish that when China cleans up its sulphate aerosol (DMS) emissions, the predicted warming will eventuate. Currently, the observed temperatures are in the lower range of predictions, with perhaps one or two points outside the error bands. Of course at a 95% confidence level, 2.5% of observations falling outside the 95% limits is to be expected.

I don't accept every finding in that report. I challenge every finding.

I don't ignore the IPCC report entirely - just don't rely on it.

I prefer to survey the scientific literature and get a picture of what is occurring in the latest research.

The second thread of information I use are the official research and monitoring bodies such as CSIRO, NASA, the various EPAs, University departments, meteorological etc

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #134 - Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:21pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:12pm:

Did you know that atmospheric co2 levels are at historical lows and if they got down to 150ppm life on Earth would cease, did you know that all plant and animal life developed during a period of far greater co2 content, are you all aware that life on Earth flourished during times when co2 content was 2000 ppm, did you know that humans can survive co2 levels of 5000 ppm?, f#ck me dead how did people become so scientifically illiterate, probably because they let their political views overwhelm their scientific views thats why.

Most of those are half truths. 5000ppm is the exposure standard for healthy individuals working in elevated CO2 for 40 hours per week in the US, or 5 days at 8 hours per day in Australia.

At continuous levels of 3000 ppm, healthy individual have reported calcification effects in body organs. Research preganant women and submarines. Typically short term CO2 in submarines can be around 3000ppm. It's not sustainable though.

The CO2 concentration has already been very close to 150 ppm and life still exists on Earth. Google C4 photosynthesis and CAM photosynthesis. C4 photosynthesis is thought to have evolved during periods of low atmospheric CO2.

Low CO2 affects some terrestrial plant life, but not animal life.

So is climate sensitivity high or low? You can't have it both ways.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 10:22pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged