Australian Politics Forum - IPCC 95% sure about AGW

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #180 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 2:50pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 2:37pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 2:25pm:

It's not a representative cross section of papers. The agenda is pretty obvious when you see which "scientists" are involved.

OMG you've got to be kidding me, you global warming hysterics are a riot, you just don't want to know do you, go and sacrifice a virgin, you'll feel a lot better Grin

That's the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. It's a private organisation owned by the Idso Family. If you look at the Staff, they are all Idsos.

Most of the "papers" are not published in any scientific journal. They are self published by the Idso family.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #181 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 2:59pm Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:49am: Rubbish Guess who had a dismissive Daddykins! Mummy never helped you did she??
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 #182 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 3:04pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:30pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:21pm:

The CO2 concentration has already been at 150 ppm and life is still existing on Earth. Although you may not know it, what you are claiming from that is a high climate sensitivity.

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

No sorry but 150ppm is the generally accepted level at which life on Earth would cease, currently we are at historically low levels of co2, the only way is up, anyone that wants to restrict co2 levels is an enemy of life, studies have shown that co2 levels of 1200ppm have amazing positive effects on plant and tree growth, of course that doesn't help much for the end of the worlders though Grin

um,

SO I ONCE AGAIN NOTE

THAT THIS CONVERSATION TOTALLY REJECTS THE NOTION THAT RATES OF CHANGE ARE IMPORTANT!!

...my my my how this conversation needs to be remined about the importance of rates of change...

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 #183 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 3:15pm

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 2:50pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 2:37pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 2:25pm:

It's not a representative cross section of papers. The agenda is pretty obvious when you see which "scientists" are involved.

OMG you've got to be kidding me, you global warming hysterics are a riot, you just don't want to know do you, go and sacrifice a virgin, you'll feel a lot better Grin

That's the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. It's a private organisation owned by the Idso Family. If you look at the Staff, they are all Idsos.

Most of the "papers" are not published in any scientific journal. They are self published by the Idso family.

Ha ha I told you "skepticalscience" would rot yer brains, lets face it mate you're a crank Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #184 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 3:36pm

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

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

Says he who denies trolling.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 5:43pm:

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

This is not trolling - how?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 12:27pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:37am:

That actually confirms the "gobbledegook which you didn't bother to read. There is a short term improvement under some conditions (well watered, not too hot)

Define "short term".

While you're at it, define "long term".

And, most importantly, do your definitions of these terms ever change?

What is this but trolling?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 12:50pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 12:27pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:37am:

That actually confirms the "gobbledegook which you didn't bother to read. There is a short term improvement under some conditions (well watered, not too hot)

Define "short term".

While you're at it, define "long term".

And, most importantly, do your definitions of these terms ever change?

And the troll repeats.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 12:59pm:

# wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 12:46pm:

So you're saying the the scientists reached their consensus on a basis other than science?

http://www.englishforeveryone.org/Topics/Reading-Comprehension.htm

Still more trolling.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:25pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:37am:

That actually confirms the "gobbledegook which you didn't bother to read. There is a short term improvement under some conditions (well watered, not too hot)

Define "short term".

While you're at it, define "long term".

And, most importantly, do your definitions of these terms ever change?

Another repeat of an earlier troll.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:41pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:31pm:

but I can explain in greater depth if you want.

Very unlikely, considering you can't define a simple term.

Yet another troll.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:45pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 1:43pm:

You're trolling. I explained what I meant. "Short term" is not a scientific term. I was just trying to explain it to you in those terms.

I'm not trolling at all.
...
White flag accepted.

What do you do, but troll? As far as the forum is concerned, you're a waste of space. Worse than a vacuum.

Muso, does one who consistently contributes less than nothing deserve to remain?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #185 - Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:46am

# wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 3:36pm:

Muso, does one who consistently contributes less than nothing deserve to remain?

Yes. He's a pretty decent bloke in other ways. I don't mean to stifle discussion, but when some people come out with disgusting personal attacks, we need to act in order to maintain some level of decency. At least you can't accuse him of that. He probably represents the views of most Australian laymen, and science in general is not too successful with risk communication. We need to improve. I need to improve.

By the way, nobody has mentioned this as yet, but the title of this thread is a bit of a strawman in itself. Apart from the fact that 95% is a pretty high level of confidence, the actual level of confidence stated is 95 - 100 %.

Quote:

(extremely likely: 95–100%

Back to top

Screenshot__2013-10-05_06:44:04.png (84 KB | 35 )

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

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #186 - Oct 5^th, 2013 at 9:58am

The IPCC have been way of with their predictions mainly because they believe their computer circulation models which show death and destruction will befall us if CO2 increases and that's because they tweak the computers for their desired outcome.

Therefore why should I have confidence in their OPINION that's OPINION not science fact because they aren't sure of anything.

When they can actually tell us science facts instead of OPINION I might just listen.

Until that time they are a waste of space and like some are suggesting should get the bugger out the way so science can progress without the political shackles.

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #187 - Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:07am

muso wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:46am:

# wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 3:36pm:

Muso, does one who consistently contributes less than nothing deserve to remain?

Yes. He's a pretty decent bloke in other ways. I don't mean to stifle discussion, but when some people come out with disgusting personal attacks, we need to act in order to maintain some level of decency. At least you can't accuse him of that. He probably represents the views of most Australian laymen, and science in general is not too successful with risk communication. We need to improve. I need to improve.

By the way, nobody has mentioned this as yet, but the title of this thread is a bit of a strawman in itself. Apart from the fact that 95% is a pretty high level of confidence, the actual level of confidence stated is 95 - 100 %.

Quote:

(extremely likely: 95–100%

The level of confidence of IPCC scientists is an interesting discussion in itself. Statistics can spew up all sorts of connotations even if used properly.

If you were to place a bet on a horse and you knew beforehand that there was 95% chance of victory you would jump at the opportunity and place a huge bet.

In quantum mechanics or more specifically experimental particle physics, the minimum level of confidence required to validate the existence of a new particle is typically 5σ levels which equates to 99.977%. This is the minimum level of confidence required to validate the detection of the higgs boson at the LHC.

A 95% confidence level is somewhere between a 3 and 4 sigma level of confidence. Still quite good.

I am not sure why the IPCC would quote such a subjective statistical figure. It's really a survey statistic. Deniers will jump at the fact that their seems to be 5% doubt amongst the IPCC contributors that the global warming is human driven.

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 #188 - Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:12am

Ajax wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 9:58am:

The IPCC have been way of with their predictions mainly because they believe their computer circulation models which show death and destruction will befall us if CO2 increases and that's because they tweak the computers for their desired outcome.

Therefore why should I have confidence in their OPINION that's OPINION not science fact because they aren't sure of anything.

When they can actually tell us science facts instead of OPINION I might just listen.

Until that time they are a waste of space and like some are suggesting should get the bugger out the way so science can progress without the political shackles.

You seem to have a 9 sigma level of confidence in your mentors Bolt and Moncton and they are specifically paid by their owners to lie and deceive the public so that fossil profits that continue just a Little bit longer.

What moral right do you have to play dice with future generations?

What moral right do you have to risk the future in order to satisfy some conspiracy ridden paranoia about global taxes and NWOs and cater for your hatred of green socialism? Socialism which you only support for the rich.

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

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #189 - Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:22am

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:12am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 9:58am:

The IPCC have been way of with their predictions mainly because they believe their computer circulation models which show death and destruction will befall us if CO2 increases and that's because they tweak the computers for their desired outcome.

Therefore why should I have confidence in their OPINION that's OPINION not science fact because they aren't sure of anything.

When they can actually tell us science facts instead of OPINION I might just listen.

Until that time they are a waste of space and like some are suggesting should get the bugger out the way so science can progress without the political shackles.

You seem to have a 9 sigma level of confidence in your mentors Bolt and Moncton and they are specifically paid by their owners to lie and deceive the public so that fossil profits that continue just a Little bit longer.

What moral right do you have to play dice with future generations?

What moral right do you have to risk the future in order to satisfy some conspiracy ridden paranoia about global taxes and NWOs and cater for your hatred of green socialism? Socialism which you only support for the rich.

Its hard pushing lies chimp,

take a look at Dr. Suzuki on Q&A.

and Tim Flannery who told us it would never rain in Australia again back in 2007 or so.

Scare mongering is not my idea of science neither is political influence (IPCC).

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #190 - Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:27am

Ajax wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:22am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:12am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 9:58am:

The IPCC have been way of with their predictions mainly because they believe their computer circulation models which show death and destruction will befall us if CO2 increases and that's because they tweak the computers for their desired outcome.

Therefore why should I have confidence in their OPINION that's OPINION not science fact because they aren't sure of anything.

When they can actually tell us science facts instead of OPINION I might just listen.

Until that time they are a waste of space and like some are suggesting should get the bugger out the way so science can progress without the political shackles.

You seem to have a 9 sigma level of confidence in your mentors Bolt and Moncton and they are specifically paid by their owners to lie and deceive the public so that fossil profits that continue just a Little bit longer.

What moral right do you have to play dice with future generations?

What moral right do you have to risk the future in order to satisfy some conspiracy ridden paranoia about global taxes and NWOs and cater for your hatred of green socialism? Socialism which you only support for the rich.

Its hard pushing lies chimp,

take a look at Dr. Suzuki on Q&A.

and Tim Flannery who told us it would never rain in Australia again back in 2007 or so.

Scare mongering is not my idea of science neither is political influence (IPCC).

They said it would NEVER RAIN again?

Who is lying now batman?

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

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #191 - Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:58am

chimp you really have to grow up and face reality dude.

In 2007 Tim Flannery was appearing all over Australian media warning that RAIN was a thing of the past.

Here is one of those interviews, the malarkey just ouzes from his mouth......????

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

Quote:

Flannery predictions

In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".

Check Sydney's dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start.

In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."

Check Adelaide's water storage levels today: 77 per cent.

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane's dam levels: 100 per cent full.

All this may seem funny, but some politicians, voters and investors have taken this kind of warming alarmism very seriously and made expensive decisions in the belief it was sound.

So let's check on them, too.

In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster.

As he put it: "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming ...

"In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."

Back to another tip Flannery gave in that year of warming terror. In 2007, he warned that "the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally" by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff.

We should switch to "green" power instead, said Flannery, who recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam.

"There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia's economy for the best part of a century," he said.

"The technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward."

Flannery repeatedly promoted this "straightforward" technology, and in 2009, the Rudd government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin, the very area Flannery recommended. Coincidentally, Flannery has for years been a Geodynamics shareholder, a vested interest he sometimes declares.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predicti...

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #192 - Oct 5^th, 2013 at 12:17pm

Ajax wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:58am:

chimp you really have to grow up and face reality dude.

In 2007 Tim Flannery was appearing all over Australian media warning that RAIN was a thing of the past.

Here is one of those interviews, the malarkey just ouzes from his mouth......????

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

Quote:

Flannery predictions

In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".

Check Sydney's dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start.

In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."

Check Adelaide's water storage levels today: 77 per cent.

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane's dam levels: 100 per cent full.

All this may seem funny, but some politicians, voters and investors have taken this kind of warming alarmism very seriously and made expensive decisions in the belief it was sound.

So let's check on them, too.

In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster.

As he put it: "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming ...

"In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."

Back to another tip Flannery gave in that year of warming terror. In 2007, he warned that "the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally" by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff.

We should switch to "green" power instead, said Flannery, who recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam.

"There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia's economy for the best part of a century," he said.

"The technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward."

Flannery repeatedly promoted this "straightforward" technology, and in 2009, the Rudd government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin, the very area Flannery recommended. Coincidentally, Flannery has for years been a Geodynamics shareholder, a vested interest he sometimes declares.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predicti...

the extreme flooding events in Queensland and Victoria, coupled with bushfires and droughts were also predictions of AGW long term.

In Victoria for example, over a decade ago, the water level went from near full to dangerously low (<30%) in seasons.
El Nino will return very soon and its historical effects will be amplified AGAIN by rising global temperatures.

You should keep up with the basic facts rather than spreading distortions and fossil fuel spin as authorised by your spin mentors Moncton and Bolt.

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

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #193 - Oct 5^th, 2013 at 12:46pm Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 12:17pm: You should keep up with the basic facts rather than spreading distortions and fossil fuel spin as authorised by your spin mentors Moncton and Bolt. Idiotic tripe
Back to top	IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #194 - Oct 5^th, 2013 at 1:08pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 12:17pm:

the extreme flooding events in Queensland and Victoria, coupled with bushfires and droughts were also predictions of AGW long term.

In Victoria for example, over a decade ago, the water level went from near full to dangerously low (<30%) in seasons.
El Nino will return very soon and its historical effects will be amplified AGAIN by rising global temperatures.

You should keep up with the basic facts rather than spreading distortions and fossil fuel spin as authorised by your spin mentors Moncton and Bolt.

chimp go put some soothing cream on that red arse of yours because its having an affect on your logic....!!!

The IPCC don't know whether they're Arthur or Marthur on climate change.

Source: AR5-Chapter 12. Table 12.4 page 78

Quote:

Table 12.4: Components in the Earth system that have been proposed in the literature as potentially being susceptible to abrupt or irreversible change. Column 2 defines whether or not a potential change can be considered to be abrupt under the AR5 definition. Column 3 states whether or not the process is irreversible in the context of abrupt change, and also gives the typical recovery time scales. Column 4 provides an assessment, if possible, of the likelihood of occurrence of abrupt change in the 21st century for the respective components or phenomena within the Earth system, for the scenarios considered in this chapter.

http://joannenova.com.au/

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 5^th, 2013 at 1:28pm by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged