Is this the end of the Greens?

Remove this Banner Ad

Todman said:
View attachment 131858 View attachment 131859
Click to expand...

That's right pick out a particular measurement from a guy well known for fabricating and ignoring evidence. What about the entire global surface and sea temperature:

land-ocean-combined.png


Nup can't see any warming there...:rolleyes:
 
Footy Smarts said:
That's right pick out a particular measurement from a guy well known for fabricating and ignoring evidence. What about the entire global surface and sea temperature:

land-ocean-combined.png


Nup can't see any warming there...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So the IPCC is lying when it acknowledges the hiatus?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The scare campaign of the right that Labor and the Greens are in bed with each other may come to fruition next election. As Labor lurch further to the right, more voters move to the Greens.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Contra Mundum said:
it is strange to me that Climate Change skepticism is a Conservative phenomemon. I can understand neo-liberals not wanting to interfere with Oil, Coal or Mining trans national companies even if it destroys the planet. But if Conservativism is sticking with what works - what has contributed more to the prosperity of the West than science and the scientific method and relying on specialists? Now we have fookwits like Bolt having the audacity of questioning people who have devoted their lives to studying these things - I think is ******* weir
Click to expand...

The more pertinent question is why the far left and global warming alarmists align.

The reason is that the "solution" is the same in both cases. Big government regulating behaviour, wealth redistribution (via carbon taxes), negative growth.

If Conservativism is sticking with what works - what has contributed more to raising people from poverty than reliable, cheap electricity from fossil fuels?

As for the scientific method and relying on specialists, we have had this discussion before. You are using a fallacious claim to authority. There is a range of views amongst scientists about 'climate change'. There is widespread agreement that atmospheric CO2 is higher due to industrial emissions. And that there is a greenhouse effect, and that a doubling of CO2 might lead to global warming in the order of 1-2 degree C. There is also general agreement that this amount of warming is not something to be alarmed about, and perhaps even beneficial. The alarmist predictions require that the feedbacks greatly amplify the impact of man’s contributions to warming. These feedbacks were built into the IPCC models but have been totally discredited due to their failure to predict observed results. The IPCC have now admitted that the models failed to accurately simulate natural internal variability. The evidence suggests that anthropogenic warming has been small and consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about.
 
Contra Mundum said:
it is strange to me that Climate Change skepticism is a Conservative phenomemon. I can understand neo-liberals not wanting to interfere with Oil, Coal or Mining trans national companies even if it destroys the planet. But if Conservativism is sticking with what works - what has contributed more to the prosperity of the West than science and the scientific method and relying on specialists? Now we have fookwits like Bolt having the audacity of questioning people who have devoted their lives to studying these things - I think is ******* weir
Click to expand...


You talk about science and the scientific method....It's all about questioning!

Should we have dismissed that young bloke called Einstein when he questioned people who had devoted their lives to studying physics?

Not suggesting Bolt is anything like Einstein, but abusing people for questioning and while claiming to be on the side of science is just so very wrong.
 
Lester Burnham said:
The more pertinent question is why the far left and global warming alarmists align.

The reason is that the "solution" is the same in both cases. Big government regulating behaviour, wealth redistribution (via carbon taxes), negative growth.

If Conservativism is sticking with what works - what has contributed more to raising people from poverty than reliable, cheap electricity from fossil fuels?

As for the scientific method and relying on specialists, we have had this discussion before. You are using a fallacious claim to authority. There is a range of views amongst scientists about 'climate change'. There is widespread agreement that atmospheric CO2 is higher due to industrial emissions. And that there is a greenhouse effect, and that a doubling of CO2 might lead to global warming in the order of 1-2 degree C. There is also general agreement that this amount of warming is not something to be alarmed about, and perhaps even beneficial. The alarmist predictions require that the feedbacks greatly amplify the impact of man’s contributions to warming. These feedbacks were built into the IPCC models but have been totally discredited due to their failure to predict observed results. The IPCC have now admitted that the models failed to accurately simulate natural internal variability. The evidence suggests that anthropogenic warming has been small and consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the questionable alignment is based, funnily enough, on an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence. The vast majority of scientists support that view that climate change is real, is happening now and is of great concern for the future. The denial and your spurious claims in here are actually pretty tedious. Go do some less selective reading perhaps? The debate is no longer 'is it happening' but what are we prepared to do about it Lester. ;)
 
telsor said:
Not suggesting Bolt is anything like Einstein, but abusing people for questioning and while claiming to be on the side of science is just so very wrong.
Click to expand...
No Bolt definitely is no Einstein. He's using the same methods to con the stupid that were used for years by Big Tobacco and Hardy Industries.
I bet Bolt giggles himself to sleep every night thinking of the fools who are conned by his bullshit.

It's a pity that these poor fools represent a fairly sizeable minority, easily manipulated by fear campaigns from the right to trick them into voting against their own interests.
 
Grin said:
No Bolt definitely is no Einstein. He's using the same methods to con the stupid that were used for years by Big Tobacco and Hardy Industries.
I bet Bolt giggles himself to sleep every night thinking of the fools who are conned by his bullshit.

It's a pity that these poor fools represent a fairly sizeable minority, easily manipulated by fear campaigns from the right to trick them into voting against their own interests.
Click to expand...

Nice attempt to avoid the point.

Science is all about skepticism and questioning.

Religion is about absolute adherence to the "truth".

Which better describes global warming "science"?
 
telsor said:
Nice attempt to avoid the point.

Science is all about skepticism and questioning.
Click to expand...
It really is not that simple, because research funding is limited. If we had unlimited funding, then sure, question every single thing and use science to find the answers.

Sadly, in the real world, research funding is not unlimited. Thus, in order to obtain funding, scientists almost always must pitch their ideas, worthwhile or otherwise, in the form of grant applications. These applications are evaluated, usually anonymously and independently, by peers who are experts in the respective fields. The reviewers then make a decision as to which ideas are worth pursuing and which are not, and who is well-qualified to pursue those ideas and who is not so well-qualified, and funding gets awarded accordingly. Thus, in theory at least, the questions that receive get funding are the ones that are deemed those which are most worth asking and are being asked by relevant experts, and not just random Joe Blow's who have no idea what they are doing. Thus, people who apply for funding to ask daft questions like, "Is gravity actually real?", or "How did NASA manage to fake the moon landing?" don't normally get funding because there are better questions out there which should be funded.

The Consensus Centre did not go through such a competitive process, and indeed barely any of Lomborg's work has actually passed the peer-review test. Why should he be given money from the government? What makes Lomborg's 'skepticism' any more legitimate than the skepticism of those clowns who think 9/11 is an inside job? Do you think they should get funding too because they like to 'question'? If so, where do you draw the line? Should I just be given funding if I claim to be a "gravity sceptic"? I'd be interested to learn how you think funding decisions should be made.
 
romeohwho said:
Pretty sure the questionable alignment is based, funnily enough, on an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence. The vast majority of scientists support that view that climate change is real, is happening now and is of great concern for the future. The denial and your spurious claims in here are actually pretty tedious. Go do some less selective reading perhaps? The debate is no longer 'is it happening' but what are we prepared to do about it Lester. ;)
Click to expand...

It's not a questionable alignment. The far left continues to use catastrophic warming prophesies to support their goals of big government, wealth redistribution and negative growth. They selectively search for science that supports their political position - which is anti-science. The same unthinking neo-hippies are also anti-vacc, anti-fluoride and anti-GM crops.

The IPCC is a political body designed to promote the 'climate change' agenda but, even so, they can't deny scientific evidence. The models they used to 'project' the catastrophic warming have failed.

In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.​
And

During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a), whereas during the 15-year period ending in 1998, it lies above 93 out of 114 modelled trends ((Box 9.2 Figure 1b; HadCRUT4 ensemble-mean trend 0.26°C per decade, CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.16°C per decade). Over the 62-year period 1951– 2012, observed and CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend agree to within 0.02 ºC per decade (Box 9.2 Figure 1c; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.13°C per decade). There is hence very high confidence that the CMIP5 models show long-term GMST trends consistent with observations, despite the disagreement over the most recent 15-year period. Due to internal climate variability, in any given 15-year period the observed GMST trend sometimes lies near one end of a model ensemble (Box 9.2, Figure 1a,b; (Easterling and Wehner, 2009)), an effect that is pronounced in Box 9.2, Figure 1a,b since GMST was influenced by a very strong El Niño event in 1998.​
 
Lester Burnham said:
It's not a questionable alignment. The far left continues to use catastrophic warming prophesies to support their goals of big government, wealth redistribution and negative growth. They selectively search for science that supports their political position - which is anti-science. The same unthinking neo-hippies are also anti-vacc, anti-fluoride and anti-GM crops.

The IPCC is a political body designed to promote the 'climate change' agenda but, even so, they can't deny scientific evidence. The models they used to 'project' the catastrophic warming have failed.

In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.​
And

During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a), whereas during the 15-year period ending in 1998, it lies above 93 out of 114 modelled trends ((Box 9.2 Figure 1b; HadCRUT4 ensemble-mean trend 0.26°C per decade, CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.16°C per decade). Over the 62-year period 1951– 2012, observed and CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend agree to within 0.02 ºC per decade (Box 9.2 Figure 1c; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.13°C per decade). There is hence very high confidence that the CMIP5 models show long-term GMST trends consistent with observations, despite the disagreement over the most recent 15-year period. Due to internal climate variability, in any given 15-year period the observed GMST trend sometimes lies near one end of a model ensemble (Box 9.2, Figure 1a,b; (Easterling and Wehner, 2009)), an effect that is pronounced in Box 9.2, Figure 1a,b since GMST was influenced by a very strong El Niño event in 1998.​
Click to expand...
Read wider!


Didn't you once refer to lord Munckton as a source?
Do you still stand by him? Or do you jump from denier to denier?
The-3rd-Viscount-Monckton-001.jpg
 
CM86 said:
Didn't you once refer to lord Munckton as a source?
Click to expand...

Don't believe I did but feel free to quote me.

but you were right, I was JAQing off, I don't really give a s**t about the Greens. I was just bored and posting some bland shite because the mods have shut down several threads and banned a bunch of SRP regulars.

Looking for alternative forums to SRP. Any ideas?
 
Lester Burnham said:
The more pertinent question is why the far left and global warming alarmists align.

The reason is that the "solution" is the same in both cases. Big government regulating behaviour, wealth redistribution (via carbon taxes), negative growth.

If Conservativism is sticking with what works - what has contributed more to raising people from poverty than reliable, cheap electricity from fossil fuels?

As for the scientific method and relying on specialists, we have had this discussion before. You are using a fallacious claim to authority. There is a range of views amongst scientists about 'climate change'. There is widespread agreement that atmospheric CO2 is higher due to industrial emissions. And that there is a greenhouse effect, and that a doubling of CO2 might lead to global warming in the order of 1-2 degree C. There is also general agreement that this amount of warming is not something to be alarmed about, and perhaps even beneficial. The alarmist predictions require that the feedbacks greatly amplify the impact of man’s contributions to warming. These feedbacks were built into the IPCC models but have been totally discredited due to their failure to predict observed results. The IPCC have now admitted that the models failed to accurately simulate natural internal variability. The evidence suggests that anthropogenic warming has been small and consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about.
Click to expand...

There is not a range of opinion amongst climate scientists - there was a reputed division of opinion whether smoking causes cancer that was utterly sponsored as well. The opinions of those who don't believe in anthropomorphic climate change align with their sponsors - what I want to know is - what is in it for the climate scientists - they are not driving ferarris. Why make it up - the other thing that is utter bullshit is how the UN or "the Left" (whatever that is) will use the IPCC to destabilise capitalism let alone bring about world communism - what is the link or mechanism. There are a few steps between the two that adherents of the conspiracy theory never ******* fill in
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HurleyHepsHird
It is time to end the consultancy gravy train and rebuild the public service
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Demonic Ascent
Demonic Ascent
Aristotle Pickett
Vic The joke that is the Victorian Liberal Party.
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
135
Views
6K
Saint
Saint
Geoff
The Joke that is the West Australian Liberal Party
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
blueboy25
blueboy25
nut
The slippery slope of private health
Replies
5
Views
577
Cap
Cap
K
The rule of law & the ACT Government
Replies
0
Views
471
Kwality
K
Chief
Tim Gurner: Tool of the Year, 2023 👽
Replies
16
Views
1K
PT Bar None
PT Bar None
M
How the coalition can win the next Victorian election
2 3
Replies
69
Views
3K
peetoo
peetoo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top