Australian Politics Forum - mindless hysterics from climate skeptics

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #165 - Dec 5^th, 2019 at 3:46pm

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

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?

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."

Back to top

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 49784 Gender:	Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics Reply #166 - Dec 5^th, 2019 at 3:50pm And Whitey said to a world covered in Darkies. "Give us half the world or we'll destroy it all with Nukes and Pollution!"
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

PZ547 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9282 Gender:	Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics Reply #167 - Dec 5^th, 2019 at 3:52pm The mindless hysterics are the province of the climate-change pushers, imo (most of them employed by the climate-change industry … for peanuts)
Back to top	All my comments, posts & opinions are to be regarded as satire & humour IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 18055 Gender:	Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics Reply #168 - Dec 5^th, 2019 at 4:43pm 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?
Back to top	IP Logged

Gnads Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 30110 Gender:	Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics Reply #169 - Dec 5^th, 2019 at 6:26pm lee wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 4:43pm: 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? Yeah that's a classic
Back to top	"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49486
At my desk.

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #170 - Dec 5^th, 2019 at 7:14pm

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

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.

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?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 48282
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #171 - Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:01pm

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

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

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.

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.)

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

PZ547

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9282
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #172 - Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:05pm

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

Back to top

All my comments, posts & opinions are to be regarded as satire & humour

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49486
At my desk.

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #173 - Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:30pm

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

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

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

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.

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?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 18055 Gender:	Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics Reply #174 - Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:44pm 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? Doran and Zimmerman? Anderegg? Naomi Oreskes ? Nah she got 100%.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49486 At my desk.	Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics Reply #175 - Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:52pm Quote: What 97% petal? That's the percentage of scientists that Frank thinks say things that scientists do not say. Hysterical, isn't it?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 48282
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #176 - Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:53pm

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:59pm by Frank »

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49486 At my desk.	Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics Reply #177 - 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?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 48282
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #178 - Dec 5^th, 2019 at 10:00pm

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/

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 5^th, 2019 at 10:08pm by Frank »

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30110
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #179 - Dec 6^th, 2019 at 6:41am

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’.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged