Australian Politics Forum - The Myth of the 97% consensus claim

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 45888 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #360 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:52am I have said that the weakened Jet Stream is allowing frigid Arctic air to flood south until blocked by a large system, bringing freezing temperatures and blizzards. It seems this is spreading with the cold air reaching further south.
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #361 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:53am

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:43am:

The grand total of increased temperatures is 0.6 degrees and no vine could even detect that.

Oh here we go. Say anything Longy. What do you know about vines and what they can detect. NOTHING!!!! Absolutely nothing but that doesnt stop you making up stuff to suite your argument. Here this is what the iconic winemaker Taylors' says about the effect climate warming is having on their grapes at

http://www.taylorswines.com.au/blog/2015/03/16/will-climate-change-affect-the-wa...

"Will Climate Change Affect the Way we Produce Wine? (Mon, 16 March 2015)

Vintage 2015 is in full swing across Australia. At Taylors, our winemakers hailed the beginning of vintage in the first week of February, when the grape parameters were all in balance – the sugars, acidity, tannins and flavour compounds. And this season’s fruit is once again a beautiful expression of our Clare Valley terroir, and of seasonal variations. The date of harvest changes every year, but we haven’t had a traditional autumn harvest on the estate since 2009. And we’re not alone.

Across Australia winters are warming, growing seasons are earlier, and vintages are coming forward. This is more than an observation. Viticulturist Professor Snow Barlow says research over the past 50 years shows coastal wine regions have warmed between 0.7 and one degree, and inland regions as much as two degrees. Vines are temperature-driven, so when the mercury rises, fruit ripening is accelerated and harvest dates are earlier.

The impact of global warming on grape growing

Professor Barlow has been at the forefront of research on grape growing and the impact of climate change since the Kyoto negotiations in the 1990s, but as Max Allen points out in The Future Makers: Australian Wines for the 21st Century, it wasn’t until 2007 that many winemakers heeded the science. The drought was taking hold, squeezing life out of sunburnt vines, and in turn shrivelling hopes for the wine industry’s long-term future, as climate experts predicted that by 2050 warmer growing regions would be out of production. The advice was to prepare for global warming, use less water, fewer chemicals, and plant more trees. And many did.

How the wine industry is adapting to rising temperatures

Some have moved to higher ground or further south to grow their cool climate Chardonnay, Riesling, Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir. Others have planted vineyards east-to-west and manipulated the canopy to protect berries from the scorching afternoon sun. And we’re seen new technologies and innovations in grape growing and winemaking that are helping producers prepare for climate variations and extreme heat."

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 45888
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #362 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:58am

And a .7°C rise in temperatures means the hottest temperatures are more than .7°C.

Saltrams are planting heat tolerant Fiano grapes on the Barossa Valley floor because the existing varieties were giving just fruit but no finesse to the wines made from them. The difference in ripening time between the valley floor and the Eden Valley up in the hills is narrowing.

AGW is powering along.

Back to top

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #363 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 11:26am

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:01am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 10:04pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

I got an education, I think you envy those that did, Longy.

There is no longer an argument about the existence of AGW, it is here and hitting the man on the land. We had a very cold winter this year courtesy of Antarctic air that escaped north, easy to extrapolate that Eastern States winters are going to get much colder.

The huge El Nino forming in the Pacific will likely write finis to all the denialist crap around.

There has never been any argument about GW, but AGW is a very different thing.

And most of the multi-generational farmers around here would laugh in your face, if you told them that human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions.

And you would disagree with them of course wouldnt you? After all, I believe you told us a week ago that you do not deny global warming but rather you're skeptical about it. Which suggests to me that you don't regard the idea laughable. In fact it suggests that you regard it as plausible even though you are not convinced. Is that an accurate assessment of your position???

No, I wouldn't disagree with them.

And it depends on whether you mean Anthropogenic Global Warming, or that the Global temperatures are rising.
The first I'm skeptical of, or at least skeptical of the AMOUNT caused by human action.
The second, I consider to be a perfectly natural, and undeniable fact. After all, the River Thames no longer freezes hard enough to hold Frost Fairs, and there isn't mass starvation due to cold summers and short growing seasons anymore.

So let me get this right. You believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming but its the amount caused by humans that you take issue with and yet you agree with farmers laughing in people's face for suggesting that "human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions".

I mean, given how much you do accept I would have thought that any genuine skeptic would consider our positions to be at least plausible enough not to be laughable. But you, who is not a climate scientists and despite the views of most climate scientists and most of the world's respected scientific bodies, have narrowed it all down so finely that you know that AGW is real but it is laughable that it could actually have anything to do with the current climate or growing conditions.

Personally I don't know anyone who is not expert in a field (let alone a field as complex as climate science) who would reason as stupidly as you just have here. Come follow me says the ignorant man. Hopeless!!!!!!

I believe that the current warming is natural and has nothing to do with Co2, but I accept the possibility that there may be some small human influence on climate change. Once there is some definitive proof either way, then the subject will be settled. However, since the temperature rises are still within historic range and nothing unique has happened, there's no reason to 100% assign the recent (last 50 to 100 years) warming to human action, over natural variation.

And anyone from a field like climate science would/should reason in a similar way that I just did. It's about accepting evidence over theory and being able to adapt to new findings.

Refusing to acknowledge the possibility that you got it wrong is more about ideology than science.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Unforgiven Gold Member Offline I have sinned Posts: 8879 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #364 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:09pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 11:26am: I believe that the current warming is natural and has nothing to do with Co2, Gizmo always expresses his beliefs as facts. Gizmo never has evidence to support his opinions.
Back to top	“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #365 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:29pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:53am:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:43am:

The grand total of increased temperatures is 0.6 degrees and no vine could even detect that.

Oh here we go. Say anything Longy. What do you know about vines and what they can detect. NOTHING!!!! Absolutely nothing but that doesnt stop you making up stuff to suite your argument. Here this is what the iconic winemaker Taylors' says about the effect climate warming is having on their grapes at

http://www.taylorswines.com.au/blog/2015/03/16/will-climate-change-affect-the-wa...

"Will Climate Change Affect the Way we Produce Wine? (Mon, 16 March 2015)

Vintage 2015 is in full swing across Australia. At Taylors, our winemakers hailed the beginning of vintage in the first week of February, when the grape parameters were all in balance – the sugars, acidity, tannins and flavour compounds. And this season’s fruit is once again a beautiful expression of our Clare Valley terroir, and of seasonal variations. The date of harvest changes every year, but we haven’t had a traditional autumn harvest on the estate since 2009. And we’re not alone.

Across Australia winters are warming, growing seasons are earlier, and vintages are coming forward. This is more than an observation. Viticulturist Professor Snow Barlow says research over the past 50 years shows coastal wine regions have warmed between 0.7 and one degree, and inland regions as much as two degrees. Vines are temperature-driven, so when the mercury rises, fruit ripening is accelerated and harvest dates are earlier.

The impact of global warming on grape growing

Professor Barlow has been at the forefront of research on grape growing and the impact of climate change since the Kyoto negotiations in the 1990s, but as Max Allen points out in The Future Makers: Australian Wines for the 21st Century, it wasn’t until 2007 that many winemakers heeded the science. The drought was taking hold, squeezing life out of sunburnt vines, and in turn shrivelling hopes for the wine industry’s long-term future, as climate experts predicted that by 2050 warmer growing regions would be out of production. The advice was to prepare for global warming, use less water, fewer chemicals, and plant more trees. And many did.

How the wine industry is adapting to rising temperatures

Some have moved to higher ground or further south to grow their cool climate Chardonnay, Riesling, Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir. Others have planted vineyards east-to-west and manipulated the canopy to protect berries from the scorching afternoon sun. And we’re seen new technologies and innovations in grape growing and winemaking that are helping producers prepare for climate variations and extreme heat."

Wow, how impressive. Australia's climate is changing and yet in the last 200 years it has never done that before? The whole nature of climate is that it changes. But it remains true that there has been no warming for the past 16 years and even Nature Magazine says so.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #366 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:30pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:58am:

And a .7°C rise in temperatures means the hottest temperatures are more than .7°C.

Saltrams are planting heat tolerant Fiano grapes on the Barossa Valley floor because the existing varieties were giving just fruit but no finesse to the wines made from them. The difference in ripening time between the valley floor and the Eden Valley up in the hills is narrowing.

AGW is powering along.

Do you realise that that sentence makes zero sense?

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #367 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:33pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 11:26am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:01am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 10:04pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

I got an education, I think you envy those that did, Longy.

There is no longer an argument about the existence of AGW, it is here and hitting the man on the land. We had a very cold winter this year courtesy of Antarctic air that escaped north, easy to extrapolate that Eastern States winters are going to get much colder.

The huge El Nino forming in the Pacific will likely write finis to all the denialist crap around.

There has never been any argument about GW, but AGW is a very different thing.

And most of the multi-generational farmers around here would laugh in your face, if you told them that human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions.

And you would disagree with them of course wouldnt you? After all, I believe you told us a week ago that you do not deny global warming but rather you're skeptical about it. Which suggests to me that you don't regard the idea laughable. In fact it suggests that you regard it as plausible even though you are not convinced. Is that an accurate assessment of your position???

No, I wouldn't disagree with them.

And it depends on whether you mean Anthropogenic Global Warming, or that the Global temperatures are rising.
The first I'm skeptical of, or at least skeptical of the AMOUNT caused by human action.
The second, I consider to be a perfectly natural, and undeniable fact. After all, the River Thames no longer freezes hard enough to hold Frost Fairs, and there isn't mass starvation due to cold summers and short growing seasons anymore.

So let me get this right. You believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming but its the amount caused by humans that you take issue with and yet you agree with farmers laughing in people's face for suggesting that "human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions".

I mean, given how much you do accept I would have thought that any genuine skeptic would consider our positions to be at least plausible enough not to be laughable. But you, who is not a climate scientists and despite the views of most climate scientists and most of the world's respected scientific bodies, have narrowed it all down so finely that you know that AGW is real but it is laughable that it could actually have anything to do with the current climate or growing conditions.

Personally I don't know anyone who is not expert in a field (let alone a field as complex as climate science) who would reason as stupidly as you just have here. Come follow me says the ignorant man. Hopeless!!!!!!

I believe that the current warming is natural and has nothing to do with Co2, but I accept the possibility that there may be some small human influence on climate change. Once there is some definitive proof either way, then the subject will be settled. However, since the temperature rises are still within historic range and nothing unique has happened, there's no reason to 100% assign the recent (last 50 to 100 years) warming to human action, over natural variation.

And anyone from a field like climate science would/should reason in a similar way that I just did. It's about accepting evidence over theory and being able to adapt to new findings.

Refusing to acknowledge the possibility that you got it wrong is more about ideology than science.

Well said. Very few climate scientist state that the majority of warming is due to human effects. Most say they simply dont know but expect it to be a fairly small percentage.

JovialMonk might think the MVP is of no importance, but the fact that it was warmer then now 800 years ago is pretty good evidence that the current warming is almost entirely natural variation.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #368 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:38pm

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:29pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:53am:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:43am:

The grand total of increased temperatures is 0.6 degrees and no vine could even detect that.

Oh here we go. Say anything Longy. What do you know about vines and what they can detect. NOTHING!!!! Absolutely nothing but that doesnt stop you making up stuff to suite your argument. Here this is what the iconic winemaker Taylors' says about the effect climate warming is having on their grapes at

http://www.taylorswines.com.au/blog/2015/03/16/will-climate-change-affect-the-wa...

"Will Climate Change Affect the Way we Produce Wine? (Mon, 16 March 2015)

Vintage 2015 is in full swing across Australia. At Taylors, our winemakers hailed the beginning of vintage in the first week of February, when the grape parameters were all in balance – the sugars, acidity, tannins and flavour compounds. And this season’s fruit is once again a beautiful expression of our Clare Valley terroir, and of seasonal variations. The date of harvest changes every year, but we haven’t had a traditional autumn harvest on the estate since 2009. And we’re not alone.

Across Australia winters are warming, growing seasons are earlier, and vintages are coming forward. This is more than an observation. Viticulturist Professor Snow Barlow says research over the past 50 years shows coastal wine regions have warmed between 0.7 and one degree, and inland regions as much as two degrees. Vines are temperature-driven, so when the mercury rises, fruit ripening is accelerated and harvest dates are earlier.

The impact of global warming on grape growing

Professor Barlow has been at the forefront of research on grape growing and the impact of climate change since the Kyoto negotiations in the 1990s, but as Max Allen points out in The Future Makers: Australian Wines for the 21st Century, it wasn’t until 2007 that many winemakers heeded the science. The drought was taking hold, squeezing life out of sunburnt vines, and in turn shrivelling hopes for the wine industry’s long-term future, as climate experts predicted that by 2050 warmer growing regions would be out of production. The advice was to prepare for global warming, use less water, fewer chemicals, and plant more trees. And many did.

How the wine industry is adapting to rising temperatures

Some have moved to higher ground or further south to grow their cool climate Chardonnay, Riesling, Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir. Others have planted vineyards east-to-west and manipulated the canopy to protect berries from the scorching afternoon sun. And we’re seen new technologies and innovations in grape growing and winemaking that are helping producers prepare for climate variations and extreme heat."

Wow, how impressive. Australia's climate is changing and yet in the last 200 years it has never done that before? The whole nature of climate is that it changes. But it remains true that there has been no warming for the past 16 years and even Nature Magazine says so.

So your still wishing to maintain that your knowledge of what will and wont effect grapevines is superior to what these iconic winemakers think. First you know better about the climate then the climate scientists and now you know better then the winemakers about how vines grow. You are such an unconscionable fraud. When punishment is metered out for slime acts like your I hope you're at the top of the list.

Back to top

IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #369 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:41pm

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:30pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:58am:

And a .7°C rise in temperatures means the hottest temperatures are more than .7°C.

Saltrams are planting heat tolerant Fiano grapes on the Barossa Valley floor because the existing varieties were giving just fruit but no finesse to the wines made from them. The difference in ripening time between the valley floor and the Eden Valley up in the hills is narrowing.

AGW is powering along.

Do you realise that that sentence makes zero sense?

Maria Costel lies and obfuscates again. Jovial Monk is correct, 0.7C is a worldwide average there will regions and localities which will experience much higher rises. See headline for February 2015 for WA

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/weather-records-set-to-tumble-with...
Quote:

A HEATWAVE in Western Australia’s north is likely to bring record-smashing temperatures, the weather bureau says.
A large mass of slow-moving hot air sitting over the Pilbara region has led to an ongoing heatwave.
Spokesman Neil Bennett said searing heat of 49C-50C was tipped for the Pilbara today. Before daybreak, the temperature in some places had already reached 34C.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #370 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:55pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 11:26am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:01am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 10:04pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

I got an education, I think you envy those that did, Longy.

There is no longer an argument about the existence of AGW, it is here and hitting the man on the land. We had a very cold winter this year courtesy of Antarctic air that escaped north, easy to extrapolate that Eastern States winters are going to get much colder.

The huge El Nino forming in the Pacific will likely write finis to all the denialist crap around.

There has never been any argument about GW, but AGW is a very different thing.

And most of the multi-generational farmers around here would laugh in your face, if you told them that human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions.

And you would disagree with them of course wouldnt you? After all, I believe you told us a week ago that you do not deny global warming but rather you're skeptical about it. Which suggests to me that you don't regard the idea laughable. In fact it suggests that you regard it as plausible even though you are not convinced. Is that an accurate assessment of your position???

No, I wouldn't disagree with them.

And it depends on whether you mean Anthropogenic Global Warming, or that the Global temperatures are rising.
The first I'm skeptical of, or at least skeptical of the AMOUNT caused by human action.
The second, I consider to be a perfectly natural, and undeniable fact. After all, the River Thames no longer freezes hard enough to hold Frost Fairs, and there isn't mass starvation due to cold summers and short growing seasons anymore.

So let me get this right. You believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming but its the amount caused by humans that you take issue with and yet you agree with farmers laughing in people's face for suggesting that "human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions".

I mean, given how much you do accept I would have thought that any genuine skeptic would consider our positions to be at least plausible enough not to be laughable. But you, who is not a climate scientists and despite the views of most climate scientists and most of the world's respected scientific bodies, have narrowed it all down so finely that you know that AGW is real but it is laughable that it could actually have anything to do with the current climate or growing conditions.

Personally I don't know anyone who is not expert in a field (let alone a field as complex as climate science) who would reason as stupidly as you just have here. Come follow me says the ignorant man. Hopeless!!!!!!

I believe that the current warming is natural and has nothing to do with Co2, but I accept the possibility that there may be some small human influence on climate change. Once there is some definitive proof either way, then the subject will be settled. However, since the temperature rises are still within historic range and nothing unique has happened, there's no reason to 100% assign the recent (last 50 to 100 years) warming to human action, over natural variation.

And anyone from a field like climate science would/should reason in a similar way that I just did. It's about accepting evidence over theory and being able to adapt to new findings.

Refusing to acknowledge the possibility that you got it wrong is more about ideology than science.

Your attempt at dodging the issue doesn't work. You know nothing about the subject, you accept AGW and yet you can be 100% sure that recent climate changes have nothing to do with AGW, notwithstanding that these climate changes are consistent with what the climate experts and the most respected science bodies in the world have said would happen. The only explanation of what your saying is sheer stupidity or Bull Sh!tting!!!!

A year ago Longy explained in a detailed thread why he does not accept AGW. It came down to this. He said he does not agree with it ideologically (I'll dig it out if he denies it). That's OK, he was only saying what all deniers (who are not sock puppets) are doing. For the moment I'm thinking you, Gizmo, are nor a sock puppet. But your crappy reasoning is such that the only reasonable explanation is that your position is driven by ideology and a wish to prevent any action for as long as possible, notwithstanding the harm that will do to humanity and the planet. You should do a search on the net. People are starting to call for your punishment. And the call will get louder.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #371 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:57pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:38pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:29pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:53am:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 10:43am:

The grand total of increased temperatures is 0.6 degrees and no vine could even detect that.

Oh here we go. Say anything Longy. What do you know about vines and what they can detect. NOTHING!!!! Absolutely nothing but that doesnt stop you making up stuff to suite your argument. Here this is what the iconic winemaker Taylors' says about the effect climate warming is having on their grapes at

http://www.taylorswines.com.au/blog/2015/03/16/will-climate-change-affect-the-wa...

"Will Climate Change Affect the Way we Produce Wine? (Mon, 16 March 2015)

Vintage 2015 is in full swing across Australia. At Taylors, our winemakers hailed the beginning of vintage in the first week of February, when the grape parameters were all in balance – the sugars, acidity, tannins and flavour compounds. And this season’s fruit is once again a beautiful expression of our Clare Valley terroir, and of seasonal variations. The date of harvest changes every year, but we haven’t had a traditional autumn harvest on the estate since 2009. And we’re not alone.

Across Australia winters are warming, growing seasons are earlier, and vintages are coming forward. This is more than an observation. Viticulturist Professor Snow Barlow says research over the past 50 years shows coastal wine regions have warmed between 0.7 and one degree, and inland regions as much as two degrees. Vines are temperature-driven, so when the mercury rises, fruit ripening is accelerated and harvest dates are earlier.

The impact of global warming on grape growing

Professor Barlow has been at the forefront of research on grape growing and the impact of climate change since the Kyoto negotiations in the 1990s, but as Max Allen points out in The Future Makers: Australian Wines for the 21st Century, it wasn’t until 2007 that many winemakers heeded the science. The drought was taking hold, squeezing life out of sunburnt vines, and in turn shrivelling hopes for the wine industry’s long-term future, as climate experts predicted that by 2050 warmer growing regions would be out of production. The advice was to prepare for global warming, use less water, fewer chemicals, and plant more trees. And many did.

How the wine industry is adapting to rising temperatures

Some have moved to higher ground or further south to grow their cool climate Chardonnay, Riesling, Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir. Others have planted vineyards east-to-west and manipulated the canopy to protect berries from the scorching afternoon sun. And we’re seen new technologies and innovations in grape growing and winemaking that are helping producers prepare for climate variations and extreme heat."

Wow, how impressive. Australia's climate is changing and yet in the last 200 years it has never done that before? The whole nature of climate is that it changes. But it remains true that there has been no warming for the past 16 years and even Nature Magazine says so.

So your still wishing to maintain that your knowledge of what will and wont effect grapevines is superior to what these iconic winemakers think. First you know better about the climate then the climate scientists and now you know better then the winemakers about how vines grow. You are such an unconscionable fraud. When punishment is metered out for slime acts like your I hope you're at the top of the list.

I would say that if you could take your eyes of wine for just a moment and consider the rest of the debate you might do better. You have produced ZERO facts, you ignore all facts given to you and then make spurious and silly claims.

So I have one question for you: do you still support the Hockey Stick graph? It's a simple question. See if you can answer it.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #372 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:59pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:55pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 11:26am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:01am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 10:04pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

I got an education, I think you envy those that did, Longy.

There is no longer an argument about the existence of AGW, it is here and hitting the man on the land. We had a very cold winter this year courtesy of Antarctic air that escaped north, easy to extrapolate that Eastern States winters are going to get much colder.

The huge El Nino forming in the Pacific will likely write finis to all the denialist crap around.

There has never been any argument about GW, but AGW is a very different thing.

And most of the multi-generational farmers around here would laugh in your face, if you told them that human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions.

And you would disagree with them of course wouldnt you? After all, I believe you told us a week ago that you do not deny global warming but rather you're skeptical about it. Which suggests to me that you don't regard the idea laughable. In fact it suggests that you regard it as plausible even though you are not convinced. Is that an accurate assessment of your position???

No, I wouldn't disagree with them.

And it depends on whether you mean Anthropogenic Global Warming, or that the Global temperatures are rising.
The first I'm skeptical of, or at least skeptical of the AMOUNT caused by human action.
The second, I consider to be a perfectly natural, and undeniable fact. After all, the River Thames no longer freezes hard enough to hold Frost Fairs, and there isn't mass starvation due to cold summers and short growing seasons anymore.

So let me get this right. You believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming but its the amount caused by humans that you take issue with and yet you agree with farmers laughing in people's face for suggesting that "human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions".

I mean, given how much you do accept I would have thought that any genuine skeptic would consider our positions to be at least plausible enough not to be laughable. But you, who is not a climate scientists and despite the views of most climate scientists and most of the world's respected scientific bodies, have narrowed it all down so finely that you know that AGW is real but it is laughable that it could actually have anything to do with the current climate or growing conditions.

Personally I don't know anyone who is not expert in a field (let alone a field as complex as climate science) who would reason as stupidly as you just have here. Come follow me says the ignorant man. Hopeless!!!!!!

I believe that the current warming is natural and has nothing to do with Co2, but I accept the possibility that there may be some small human influence on climate change. Once there is some definitive proof either way, then the subject will be settled. However, since the temperature rises are still within historic range and nothing unique has happened, there's no reason to 100% assign the recent (last 50 to 100 years) warming to human action, over natural variation.

And anyone from a field like climate science would/should reason in a similar way that I just did. It's about accepting evidence over theory and being able to adapt to new findings.

Refusing to acknowledge the possibility that you got it wrong is more about ideology than science.

Your attempt at dodging the issue doesn't work. You know nothing about the subject, you accept AHW and yet you can be 100% sure that recent climate changes have nothing to do with AGW, notwithstanding that the climate experts and the most respected science bodies in the world are saying otherwise. The only explanation of what your saying is sheer stupidity or Bull Sh!tting!!!!

A year ago Longy explained in a detailed thread why he does not accept AGW. It came down to this. He said he does not agree with it ideologically (I'll did it out if he denies it). That's OK, he was just saying what all deniers (who are not sock puppets) are doing. For the moment I'm thinking you, Gizmo, are nor a sock puppet. But your crappy reasoning is such that the only reasonable explanation is that your position is driven by ideology and a wish to prevent any action for as long as possible, notwithstanding the harm that will do to humanity and the planet. You should do a search on the net. People are starting to call for your punishment. And the call will get louder.

You proferred not a single fact, gave not a single reasoned argument and simply blathered. 17 years now and the temperature as not increased.

It is time for you to face some facts.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #373 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:01pm

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:33pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 11:26am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:01am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 10:04pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

I got an education, I think you envy those that did, Longy.

There is no longer an argument about the existence of AGW, it is here and hitting the man on the land. We had a very cold winter this year courtesy of Antarctic air that escaped north, easy to extrapolate that Eastern States winters are going to get much colder.

The huge El Nino forming in the Pacific will likely write finis to all the denialist crap around.

There has never been any argument about GW, but AGW is a very different thing.

And most of the multi-generational farmers around here would laugh in your face, if you told them that human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions.

And you would disagree with them of course wouldnt you? After all, I believe you told us a week ago that you do not deny global warming but rather you're skeptical about it. Which suggests to me that you don't regard the idea laughable. In fact it suggests that you regard it as plausible even though you are not convinced. Is that an accurate assessment of your position???

No, I wouldn't disagree with them.

And it depends on whether you mean Anthropogenic Global Warming, or that the Global temperatures are rising.
The first I'm skeptical of, or at least skeptical of the AMOUNT caused by human action.
The second, I consider to be a perfectly natural, and undeniable fact. After all, the River Thames no longer freezes hard enough to hold Frost Fairs, and there isn't mass starvation due to cold summers and short growing seasons anymore.

So let me get this right. You believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming but its the amount caused by humans that you take issue with and yet you agree with farmers laughing in people's face for suggesting that "human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions".

I mean, given how much you do accept I would have thought that any genuine skeptic would consider our positions to be at least plausible enough not to be laughable. But you, who is not a climate scientists and despite the views of most climate scientists and most of the world's respected scientific bodies, have narrowed it all down so finely that you know that AGW is real but it is laughable that it could actually have anything to do with the current climate or growing conditions.

Personally I don't know anyone who is not expert in a field (let alone a field as complex as climate science) who would reason as stupidly as you just have here. Come follow me says the ignorant man. Hopeless!!!!!!

I believe that the current warming is natural and has nothing to do with Co2, but I accept the possibility that there may be some small human influence on climate change. Once there is some definitive proof either way, then the subject will be settled. However, since the temperature rises are still within historic range and nothing unique has happened, there's no reason to 100% assign the recent (last 50 to 100 years) warming to human action, over natural variation.

And anyone from a field like climate science would/should reason in a similar way that I just did. It's about accepting evidence over theory and being able to adapt to new findings.

Refusing to acknowledge the possibility that you got it wrong is more about ideology than science.

Well said. Very few climate scientist state that the majority of warming is due to human effects. Most say they simply don't know but expect it to be a fairly small percentage.

Complete lie in true Longy style

JovialMonk might think the MVP is of no importance, but the fact that it was warmer then now 800 years ago is pretty good evidence that the current warming is almost entirely natural variation.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #374 - Sep 7^th, 2015 at 1:06pm

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 12:59pm: