Christine Milne should have been Drug and Alcohol tested ...

[Ripper]

You said that there was NO empirical evidence though.

Or is there only evidence which you, as a complete amateur, interpret as being empirical because it supports your pov?

There isn't that I know of. I all comes down to the climate sensitivity factor (degrees warming/ per doubling of Co2) , which in each IPCC report has been revised down and now is perilously close to Lindzen's and Pat Micheal's position early in the debate. IOW , the more time goes by it appears Lindzen and Michaels were correct.

Even if the computer models were right, Michaels said, the average temperatures would
increase only 1.6 degrees celsius over the next 100 years. "If something appears to be
moderate and you couldn't stop it anyway, shouldn't that be the end of the issue?" Michaels
asked.

Lets not forget how the team went after Pat Michaels.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Ripper doesn't give a s**t about climate change.

 

[slicedndiced]

There isn't that I know of. I all comes down to the climate sensitivity factor (degrees warming/ per doubling of Co2) , which in each IPCC report has been revised down and now is perilously close to Lindzen's and Pat Micheal's position early in the debate. IOW , the more time goes by it appears Lindzen and Michaels were correct.



Lets not forget how the team went after Pat Michaels.

Of course there is no empirical evidence, on EITHER side.

I just threw it in as a red herring for Dan to bite on.

You can hardly have empirical evidence on model based, (looking into the future), speculative theorisation.

I look at this way, from a purely simplistic stand point.

Without bias, regardless of how this issue transpires over the decades, it has at least, proved as a wake-up call to humanity, and focussed some of our research into doing things better, cleaner and with an eye to the future.

Common sense dictates, (and lets forget the scientific guff for a moment), that if we continue on our present path, humanity is pretty much done for, regardless of a warming planet or not.

That can only be a good thing.

 

[telsor]

Disproving a hypothesis is different from slagging off from the sidelines. Clearly you dont understand the scientific method.

I'm still waiting for someone to prove the hypothesis.

OK, we have a theory, we build computer models based on that theory (and wont show anyone how the models work, because those that have been inadvertently released have been shown to have more fudging than a fudge factory) and the models have, thus far, been WAY off real world results.

In most of the scientific world, this would cause serious doubts about the initial theory.


But yeah, those damned skeptics...imagine if the IPCC ignored tiny details like the world not warming for 15 years and only admitted it when because those bastards kept pointing to the real world data rather than the models.

 

[slicedndiced]

I'm still waiting for someone to prove the hypothesis.

It can't be proven.

But stating that as proof of it being incorrect is going down the track of an intellectual vacuum.

 

[romeoh]

Exactly -the evidence out there is overwhelming but these guys are completely incapable of seeing it. Inexplicable to me-some hard to fathom vested interest. Bizarre.

 

[Ripper]

Exactly -the evidence out there is overwhelming but these guys are completely incapable of seeing it. Inexplicable to me-some hard to fathom vested interest. Bizarre.

What evidence?

Heatwaves?

Climate refugees?

 

[slicedndiced]

What evidence?

Heatwaves?

Climate refugees?

Come on Rip. You're quoting tangible evidence from now or prior.

Again, the only true debate on this issue is disagreement about forward modelling.

 

[romeoh]

What evidence?

Heatwaves?

Climate refugees?

I don't really care what you think and I certainly can't be bothered wasting my time debating this with you.
But I do find it quite unfathomable given the info that is out there.

 

[Ripper]

Come on Rip. You're quoting tangible evidence from now or prior.

Again, the only true debate on this issue is disagreement about forward modelling.

Exactly , but to model correctly you have to have the correct parameters. Fortunately the sun in in a 100year plus minimum , so it should give us a handle on how much effect it has and lead us to the elusive amplification factor the Rhodes Fairbridge was looking for back in the 1930's , trying to tie the federation drought to solar cycle 14.

 

[Dan26]

How many of published scientists on this issue do you actually know, or have worked with?

How much research have you carried out in regards to the peer reviews on their previous research? How much have they covered up, or withdrawn?

As I mentioned earlier to Ripper, you are a total amateur who tries to pass himself off as an expert.

You'll yell and scream and stamp your feet that you are right and post ream after ream of c+p from your favourite sites, yet it will prove nothing.

Go write a love letter to Dennis Jensen.

You're using the "argument from authority" tactic.

And it's pathetic.

Basically, anyone who using the AFA argument knows they are wrong. So, they use the excuse of "Person-x is a scientist and you're not, so what would you know"

AFA is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

At the end of the day, anyone can read a graph, anyone can look at data collected by experts, without actually doing the collecting themselves. Instead of using AFA, how about looking at what I am saying, taking it on board, and forming an opinion based on actual empirical evidence.

Your tactic is basically: "Hmmm, Dan makes sense, but if I say he's not a climate scientists it gives me a good excuse to ignore the facts he presents"

I've figured you out. I know your type like the back of my hand.

 

[Dan26]

Irrelevant.

We all accept that humans are putting C02 into the atmosphere, and therefore that humans are causing "some" warming.

But how much? Only 0.5% of all peer reviewed paper in the last 21 years come to the conclusion that humans are responsible for most of the warming.

99.5% of the papers (whilst accepting that humans have some impact (no matter how insignificant that warming is) come to the conclusion that humans are responsible for less than half of the warming.

The whole debate in a nutshell, is this: Climate alarmists, have taken a true fact (C02 causing warming) and exaggerated it, for political and personal gain.

 

[telsor]

So, did they all agree on the cause and extent of the warming, or the degree to which mankind was a factor?

Hell, it's cold tonight so I put the heater on, so I have (to an infinitesimal degree) warmed the world. Doesn't mean there is a global catastrophic event coming.

 

[slicedndiced]

Exactly , but to model correctly you have to have the correct parameters. Fortunately the sun in in a 100year plus minimum , so it should give us a handle on how much effect it has and lead us to the elusive amplification factor the Rhodes Fairbridge was looking for back in the 1930's , trying to tie the federation drought to solar cycle 14.

See, this is where the firm belief of the future falls flat on its face.

You are prepared to accept speculative evidence of the Suns influence and use it as empirical evidence of the future.

So, how can you draw the line for perfect parameters?

It is nothing but speculation.

You're using the "argument from authority" tactic.

And it's pathetic.

Basically, anyone who using the AFA argument knows they are wrong. So, they use the excuse of "Person-x is a scientist and you're not, so what would you know"

AFA is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

At the end of the day, anyone can read a graph, anyone can look at data collected by experts, without actually doing the collecting themselves. Instead of using AFA, how about looking at what I am saying, taking it on board, and forming an opinion based on actual empirical evidence.

Your tactic is basically: "Hmmm, Dan makes sense, but if I say he's not a climate scientists it gives me a good excuse to ignore the facts he presents"

I've figured you out. I know your type like the back of my hand.

See, this is where I tell you to eat a bag of dicks.

You can read a graph, you can look at data, so that makes you an expert.

Jesus wept. It is too stupid for words.

How about you tell us about your experience in formulating said graphs, your experience in collating data and interpreting it and then show us your published, peer reviewed, evidence?

On anything. Anything at all.

You are nothing but a try hard, with elementary c+p skills who mindlessly promotes a viewpoint from a position of ignorance.

You do, however, make a lot of noise. Like an empty vessel.

This particular field of science was quite small from a global viewpoint, and a lot of people actually knew each other via conferences, study tours etc, etc. People knew who were credible, those who were on the edge, and those who were dead-set dodgy, compromised professionally or downright incompetent.

Suddenly it has exploded into this monster where everyone from a truck mechanic to a Thai ladyboy is suddenly an "expert", and shoving their "expertise" down everyone's throat.

 

[mottrain]

See, this is where the firm belief of the future falls flat on its face.

You are prepared to accept speculative evidence of the Suns influence and use it as empirical evidence of the future.

So, how can you draw the line for perfect parameters?

It is nothing but speculation.



See, this is where I tell you to eat a bag of dicks.

You can read a graph, you can look at data, so that makes you an expert.

Jesus wept. It is too stupid for words.

How about you tell us about your experience in formulating said graphs, your experience in collating data and interpreting it and then show us your published, peer reviewed, evidence?

On anything. Anything at all.

You are nothing but a try hard, with elementary c+p skills who mindlessly promotes a viewpoint from a position of ignorance.

You do, however, make a lot of noise. Like an empty vessel.

This particular field of science was quite small from a global viewpoint, and a lot of people actually knew each other via conferences, study tours etc, etc. People knew who were credible, those who were on the edge, and those who were dead-set dodgy, compromised professionally or downright incompetent.

Suddenly it has exploded into this monster where everyone from a truck mechanic to a Thai ladyboy is suddenly an "expert", and shoving their "expertise" down everyone's throat.

Here we go again. Another poster replies with support and evidence on views which were against yours with evidence and support and all you can bother to do is abuse them through posts rather replying to the issue with evidence discrediting it.

 

[slicedndiced]

Here we go again. Another poster replies with support and evidence on views which were against yours with evidence and support and all you can bother to do is abuse them through posts rather replying to the issue with evidence discrediting it.

I think it best that you give the hardon you have for me a stroke for 10 or 15 seconds and get it over with.

 

[Long Live HFC]

So, did they all agree on the cause and extent of the warming, or the degree to which mankind was a factor?

yes, they all agreed on the cause. i doubt there are ~11,000 papers that examine the degree to which mankind was a factor, but the research done in that area indicates it to be the most significant.

there is plenty of information available that you shouldn't really need to ask these questions.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Milne

I want to finish with: Only in the darkness can you see the stars.​

It will help in spotting Bob Brown's aliens when they arrive.

 

[slicedndiced]

Here we go again. Another poster replies with support and evidence on views which were against yours with evidence and support and all you can bother to do is abuse them through posts rather replying to the issue with evidence discrediting it.

Further to that...

again

I am on record in saying that this issue has redefined internet debate in regards to the circular, never-ending, I'm right-you're wrong bullshit.

What a childs mind, such as yours, really means little.

 

[telsor]

yes, they all agreed on the cause.

No, they agreed on *A* cause.

i doubt there are ~11,000 papers that examine the degree to which mankind was a factor, but the research done in that area indicates it to be the most significant.

Curious that the image you showed didn't indicate that information and instead attempted to 'prove' a consensus by providing misleading information. If the more correct information was so clear and available, you'd think you'd show that instead.

there is plenty of information available that you shouldn't really need to ask these questions.

Sorry if questioning your misleading information is such a burden for you.

 

[telsor]

Milne

I want to finish with: Only in the darkness can you see the stars.​

It will help in spotting Bob Brown's aliens when they arrive.

I think she's trying to show that SHY doesn't have the monopoly on crazy in the party.

 

[Ripper]

See, this is where the firm belief of the future falls flat on its face.

You are prepared to accept speculative evidence of the Suns influence and use it as empirical evidence of the future.

So, how can you draw the line for perfect parameters?

It is nothing but speculation.

No I stated that we are lucky that we may be able to find the cause of the speculated effects. It is a bit like back box theory at the moment, we know historically that times of low solar activity causes cooling, (see Maunder minimum , Dalton minimum little ice age) we just don't know the exact cause.

That it is happening now when we have modern technology to measure the effects is fortunate.

So any modeling done will be most likely be very wrong, as has been shown by the current climate models.

 

[telsor]

No I stated that we are lucky that we may be able to find the cause of the speculated effects. It is a bit like back box theory at the moment, we know historically that times of low solar activity causes cooling, (see Maunder minimum , Dalton minimum little ice age) we just don't know the exact cause.

That it is happening now when we have modern technology to measure the effects is fortunate.

So any modeling done will be most likely be very wrong, as has been shown by the current climate models.

What I find interesting about the models is that one of the arguments for them missing the pause is that the warming has been taking place in the oceans.

Given that water covers ~70% of the planet, how come they weren't in the models in the first place? Or if they were, why isn't getting it this wrong cause for them to be thrown out/completely reworked?

But the religion keeps telling us the science is settled, and changing things would show that to be wrong.

 

[Dry Rot]

Lists of "climate criminals" . The inner totalitarian has come through.

Will keep Channel 9 happy in a few decades for the 23rd series of Underbelly: Climate Change.

 

[Ripper]

What I find interesting about the models is that one of the arguments for them missing the pause is that the warming has been taking place in the oceans.

Given that water covers ~70% of the planet, how come they weren't in the models in the first place? Or if they were, why isn't getting it this wrong cause for them to be thrown out/completely reworked?

But the religion keeps telling us the science is settled, and changing things would show that to be wrong.

The cycle works basically like this;

The sun warms the ocean.
The ocean warms the atmosphere
The heat in the atmosphere is lost to space.

Having the atmosphere warm the oceans is like trying to heat your bath with a hair drier.