- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,548
- 4,366
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
at the risk of wasting my time, why don't you publish your research and prove thousands of peer-reviewed papers wrong?
Whats a greater threat to Australia Climate Change deniers or terrorists?
- Thread starter Hawk Dork
- Start date
- Tagged users None
at the risk of wasting my time, why don't you publish your research and prove thousands of peer-reviewed papers wrong?
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,548
- 4,366
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Gee I hope you've still got your right one
The President’s 2014 Budget proposes over $21.4 billion for climate change activities.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/de...gislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
huh? US government is not exxon mobil. and US government's strategies for AGW mitigation/reduction is not a grant for research
Lester Burnham
Cancelled
- Jul 9, 2013
- 4,492
- 4,406
- AFL Club
- Geelong
huh? US government is not exxon mobil. and US government's strategies for AGW mitigation/reduction is not a grant for research
$2.7 billion of it on climate science, or as they term it 'climate change science'. And that's just in the US.
This is an argument from authority that relies on an assumption that all peer reviewed papers agree with each other. They don't. If you take the trouble to read full IPPC reports there is clearly a significant amount of doubt and difference of opinion among scientists.
Feel free to tell us of your published research that disproves the paper I quoted that shows IPCC model projections have failed.
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 22,957
- 25,318
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
According to the scientists themselves, they nearly all agree on AGW, so what are you referring to?
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,791
- 15,026
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Haha.
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,548
- 4,366
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
uh again, i was talking about exxon mobil's spending.
no it isn't.
no it doesn't. it's a question that a) queries whether you have published your research and b) alludes to scientists being big dummies if they've wasted all their time and effort on something destroyed in a couple paragraphs on a footy forum. ie why haven't they thought of this (your position)?
sure, but none of it is related to a) temperature rises not being a real thing or b) GHGs not being a significant factor in it. don't try and weasel your denial in between conservative science uncertainties.
i don't need to. everyone that matters understands that climate models are there to project longterm trends and are not designed for short term variations. but hey, here's one that does predict so-called hiatus:
Temperature evolution in a model simulation with the MRI model. Other models also show comparable “hiatuses” due to natural climate variability. This is one of the standard simulations carried out within the framework of CMIP3 for the IPCC 2007 report...
When comparing data with models, one needs to understand a key point: the models also produce internal variations, including ENSO, but as this (similar to the weather in the models) is a stochastic process, the El Niños and La Niñas are distributed randomly over the years. Therefore, only in rare cases a model will randomly produce a sequence that is similar to the observed sequence with reduced warming from 1998 to 2012. There are such models – see the first image above – but most show such phases of slow warming or “hiatus” at other times.
The IPCC has therefore never tried to predict the climate evolution over 15 years, because that’s just too much influenced by random internal variability (such as ENSO), which we cannot predict (at least as yet).
However, all models show such variability – no one who understands this issue could have been surprised that there can be such hiatus phases. They’ve also occurred in the past, for example from 1982, as Trenberth shows in his Figure 4.
The following graph shows a comparison of observational data with the CMIP5 ensemble of model experiments that have been made for the current IPCC report. The graph shows that the El Niño year 1998 is at the top and the last two cool La Niña years are at the bottom of the model projection range (for the various reasons explained above). However, the temperatures (at least according to the data of Cowtan & Way) are within the range which is spanned by 90% of the models.
So there is no evidence for model errors here.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/
sorry for length of quote, but all the info was relevant.
The US government is much bigger. XOM had revenue of $420 billion and made $32 billion profit. The company spent $6 billion on environmental issues in 2013.huh? US government is not exxon mobil. and US government's strategies for AGW mitigation/reduction is not a grant for research
Sorry to break the news to you, but there is not one peer reviewed paper that shows empirical evidence that human emissions of C02 are the main driver of warming or that human emissions of C02 are dangerous.
Not one.
The climate alarmists have lost the debate on the science, which is why they seeks to shut down debate. Everyone knows by now, this debate is not about the science, but about the politics.
Left-wing people ideologically believe in bigger government, higher taxes, more rules and regulations.
Belief in alarmist climate change requires bigger government, higher taxes, more rules and regulations.
Hence, lefties gravitate to the alarmism. DUH! It's a religion. Most of them wouldn't have any idea about the science. Most of them wouldn't have any idea that there is NO empirical evidence to support the alarmism.
By the way, we all accept that C02 causes warming (well established physics that we've knows for about 100 years), therefore we know that humans - who are putting C02 into the atmosphere - must have "some" affect, however small, insignificant, or possibly beneficial it may be. That is NOT what the debate is about.
The debate is about HOW MUCH warming, and as I mentioned above, there is simply no empirical evidence to support the alarmist religion. None.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,791
- 15,026
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
It's CO2, not C02.
O for Oxygen.
0 for zero. (Which is the value we should give your point of view).
Maybe you should stick to posting about Star wars?
well so far your the only denier in this thread who understands the debate, most full on deny CO2 has made any contribution to increasing temperatures.
in fact in 1896 Svante Arrhenius was the first man to write a paper on CO2 and warming.
however your proposal that there's no empirical evidence that human emissions are responsible for a great deal of warming is just untrue. all these studies disagree with you:
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Note that IPCC uses the following terms to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely >95%, Very likely > 90%, and Likely > 66%.
Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Bowen, G.J., J. B. West, B. H. Vaugh n, T. E. Dawson, J. R. Ehleringer, M. L. Fogel, K. Hobson, J. Hoogewerff , C. Kendall, C.-T. Lai, C. C. Miller, D. Noone, H. Sch warc z, and C. J. Still. 2009. Isoscapes to Address Large-Scale Earth Science Challenges EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 90:109-116.
Alley, R.B., T. Berntsen, N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, P. Friedlingstein, J.M. Gregory, G.C. Hegerl, M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B.J. Hoskins, F.Joos, J. Jouzel, V. Kattsov, U. Lohmann, M. Manning, T. Matsuno, M. Molina, Neville Nicholls, Jonathan Overpeck, D. Qin, G. Raga, V. Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M. Rusticucci, S. Solomon, R. Somerville, T. F. Stocker, P.A. Stott, R.J. Stouffer, P. Whetton, R.A. Wood, D. Wratt. 2007. Summary for Policy Makers In:Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev. 2005. Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science 308:1431-1435.
Hegerl, G.C., F. W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo, J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E. Penner and P.A. Stott. 2007. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In:Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Santer, B.D., M. F. Wehner, M. L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G. A. Meehl, K. E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W. M. Washington, J. S. Boyle, W. Brüggemann. 2003. Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science, 301: 479–483.
Santer, B.D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, and F. J. Wentz. 2008. Consistency of modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1756
that's just to start with do we need to go over this again?
97% of scientists agree that human CO2 emissions are contributing to climate change at dangerous levels. and this is the issue, deniers try to mix politics into a scientific issue. We saw it before with lead in paint and with CFC in aerosols. you will try and muddy the waters because you don't agree on how its handled.
As you stated don't want higher taxes, bigger government, etc, etc. but you don't have a better solution. Perhaps instead of trying to pretend the science is wrong, knuckle down and find a solution to the issue that fits your political outlook. Because science doesn't care about your political ideology. Sooner or later the far right is going to have to deal with this, because even moderate right wingers accept the evidence and the evidence says emissions are too high.
In the past the right has found the balls to act, it took some time but they got there. We saw it with CFC's. How long will the right wait this time?
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,548
- 4,366
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
uh huh. just because we don't have another planet to experiment on doesn't refute the research lol.
this comment is so arse-backwards it's just too funny
Ratts of Tobruk
Cancelled
- May 1, 2013
- 9,168
- 5,975
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- ATV Irdning
It seems to be an actual tactic. Same as Abbott referring to Shorten as Goebells. ...Although to be fair to Abbott's team they probably thought it was a genius way to retort his previous holocaust reference, hence why they had the references to ALP uses of Nazi terminology ready-to-go.this comment is so arse-backwards it's just too funny
Given you're concerned that such donations might effect scientific analysis, are you concerned that the oil and coal lobbies might similarly be donating to anti-climate change campaigners?
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/03/29/climatechange-emissions-idINKBN0MP0D020150329
U.S. to submit plans to fight global warming; most others delay
OSLO/WASHINGTON - The United States will submit plans for slowing global warming to the United Nations early this week but most governments will miss an informal March 31 deadline, complicating work on a global climate deal due in December.
The U.S. submission, on Monday or Tuesday according to a White House official, but other emitters such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, Canada and Australia say they are waiting until closer to a Paris summit in December, meant to agree a global deal.
"It's not the ideal situation," said Niklas Hoehne, founding partner of the New Climate Institute in Germany which tracks submissions, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).
In 2013, the United Nations invited INDCs by March 31, 2015, from governments "ready to do so" - the early, informal deadline was meant to give time to compare pledges and toughen weak ones.
Late submissions complicate the Paris summit because it will be far harder to judge late INDCs.
"The earlier the better," said Jake Schmidt, of the U.S. National Resources Defense Council. "It allows people to look at each others' targets and judge whether or not they pass muster."
It says it is already clear that INDCs will fall short of emissions cuts needed to limit temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, a U.N. ceiling to avert floods, desertification, and rising seas.
U.S. to submit plans to fight global warming; most others delay
OSLO/WASHINGTON - The United States will submit plans for slowing global warming to the United Nations early this week but most governments will miss an informal March 31 deadline, complicating work on a global climate deal due in December.
The U.S. submission, on Monday or Tuesday according to a White House official, but other emitters such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, Canada and Australia say they are waiting until closer to a Paris summit in December, meant to agree a global deal.
"It's not the ideal situation," said Niklas Hoehne, founding partner of the New Climate Institute in Germany which tracks submissions, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).
In 2013, the United Nations invited INDCs by March 31, 2015, from governments "ready to do so" - the early, informal deadline was meant to give time to compare pledges and toughen weak ones.
Late submissions complicate the Paris summit because it will be far harder to judge late INDCs.
"The earlier the better," said Jake Schmidt, of the U.S. National Resources Defense Council. "It allows people to look at each others' targets and judge whether or not they pass muster."
It says it is already clear that INDCs will fall short of emissions cuts needed to limit temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, a U.N. ceiling to avert floods, desertification, and rising seas.
Lester Burnham
Cancelled
- Jul 9, 2013
- 4,492
- 4,406
- AFL Club
- Geelong
clause a) applies as much to yourself as it does to me or for that matter Al Gore, Christine Milne or Matt Damon.
b) how are you qualified in a couple paragraphs on a footy forum to destroy the opinions of multi published scientists such as Judith Curry, Roger Pielke, Richard Lindzen, Hans von Storch, Roy Spencer, Ian Pilmer, Stewart Franks etc etc. The answer is that you are not at all qualified so by your own standards you should shut up.
Here's a list of people you are not qualified to disagree with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
a) is a straw man. I didn't argue that there have been no temperature rises. b) there is a great degree of doubt and difference of opinion among scientists about the relative attribution of AGW and natural forces on climate. You don't need to trust me on this. Try reading the detailed IPCC reports.
Congratulations. Non-published footy forum legend alludes to scientists Hans von Storch, Armineh Barkhordarian, Klaus Hasselmann, and Eduardo Zorita being big dummies that they've wasted all their time and effort on something destroyed in a couple paragraphs on a footy forum.
Sorry to be bitchy but I am responding in kind. You have picked one model result (that is way off for the rest of the 20th century) out of many models. Chances are that just by chance one of them would have been right. von Storch at al. looked at the many models not just one and found they were wholly inaccurate.
As for your claim that 'everyone that matters understands that climate models are there to project longterm trends' you must mean that the IPCC don't matter, In the very first article in SYDNEY Blood's list above there is a whole chapter 'TS.5.1 Understanding Near-Term Climate Change'. Clearly trends over 15 and 20 year periods are significant.
Previous IPCC projections of future climate changes can now be compared to recent observations, increasing confidence in short-term projections and the underlying physical understanding of committed climate change over a few decades. Projections for 1990 to 2005 carried out for the FAR and the SAR suggested global mean temperature increases of about 0.3°C and 0.15°C per decade, respectively. The difference between the two was due primarily to the inclusion of aerosol cooling effects in the SAR, whereas there was no quantitative basis for doing so in the FAR. Projections given in the TAR were similar to those of the SAR. These results are comparable to observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, as shown in Figure TS.26, providing broad confi dence in such short-term projections. Some of this warming is the committed effect of changes in the concentrations of greenhouse gases prior to the times of those earlier assessments.
Committed climate change (see Box TS.9) due to atmospheric composition in the year 2000 corresponds to a warming trend of about 0.1°C per decade over the next two decades.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdfCommitted climate change (see Box TS.9) due to atmospheric composition in the year 2000 corresponds to a warming trend of about 0.1°C per decade over the next two decades.
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 22,957
- 25,318
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
Here's a list of organisations that are qualified to disagree that very small list of dissenters that you posted up:
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations
(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations
(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)
- Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
- Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
- Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
- Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
- Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
- Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
- Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
- Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
- Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
- Académie des Sciences, France
- Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
- Academy of Athens
- Academy of Science of Mozambique
- Academy of Science of South Africa
- Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia
- Academy of Sciences of Moldova
- Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
- Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
- Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
- Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
- Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
- African Academy of Sciences
- Albanian Academy of Sciences
- Amazon Environmental Research Institute
- American Academy of Pediatrics
- American Anthropological Association
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
- American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
- American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
- American Astronomical Society
- American Chemical Society
- American College of Preventive Medicine
- American Fisheries Society
- American Geophysical Union
- American Institute of Biological Sciences
- American Institute of Physics
- American Meteorological Society
- American Physical Society
- American Public Health Association
- American Quaternary Association
- American Society for Microbiology
- American Society of Agronomy
- American Society of Civil Engineers
- American Society of Plant Biologists
- American Statistical Association
- Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
- Australian Academy of Science
- Australian Bureau of Meteorology
- Australian Coral Reef Society
- Australian Institute of Marine Science
- Australian Institute of Physics
- Australian Marine Sciences Association
- Australian Medical Association
- Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
- Botanical Society of America
- Brazilian Academy of Sciences
- British Antarctic Survey
- Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
- California Academy of Sciences
- Cameroon Academy of Sciences
- Canadian Association of Physicists
- Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
- Canadian Geophysical Union
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Canadian Society of Soil Science
- Canadian Society of Zoologists
- Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
- Center for International Forestry Research
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
- Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
- Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Crop Science Society of America
- Cuban Academy of Sciences
- Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
- Ecological Society of America
- Ecological Society of Australia
- Environmental Protection Agency
- European Academy of Sciences and Arts
- European Federation of Geologists
- European Geosciences Union
- European Physical Society
- European Science Foundation
- Federation of American Scientists
- French Academy of Sciences
- Geological Society of America
- Geological Society of Australia
- Geological Society of London
- Georgian Academy of Sciences
- German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
- Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Indian National Science Academy
- Indonesian Academy of Sciences
- Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
- Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
- Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
- Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
- InterAcademy Council
- International Alliance of Research Universities
- International Arctic Science Committee
- International Association for Great Lakes Research
- International Council for Science
- International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
- International Research Institute for Climate and Society
- International Union for Quaternary Research
- International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
- International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
- Islamic World Academy of Sciences
- Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
- Kenya National Academy of Sciences
- Korean Academy of Science and Technology
- Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
- l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
- Latin American Academy of Sciences
- Latvian Academy of Sciences
- Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
- Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
- Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
- Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
- National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
- National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
- National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
- National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
- National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- National Association of Geoscience Teachers
- National Association of State Foresters
- National Center for Atmospheric Research
- National Council of Engineers Australia
- National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- National Research Council
- National Science Foundation
- Natural England
- Natural Environment Research Council, UK
- Natural Science Collections Alliance
- Network of African Science Academies
- New York Academy of Sciences
- Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
- Nigerian Academy of Sciences
- Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
- Oklahoma Climatological Survey
- Organization of Biological Field Stations
- Pakistan Academy of Sciences
- Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
- Pew Center on Global Climate Change
- Polish Academy of Sciences
- Romanian Academy
- Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
- Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
- Royal Astronomical Society, UK
- Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
- Royal Irish Academy
- Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
- Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
- Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
- Royal Society of Canada
- Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
- Royal Society of the United Kingdom
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Science and Technology, Australia
- Science Council of Japan
- Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
- Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
- Scripps Institution of Oceanography
- Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
- Slovak Academy of Sciences
- Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
- Society for Ecological Restoration International
- Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
- Society of American Foresters
- Society of Biology (UK)
- Society of Systematic Biologists
- Soil Science Society of America
- Sudan Academy of Sciences
- Sudanese National Academy of Science
- Tanzania Academy of Sciences
- The Wildlife Society (international)
- Turkish Academy of Sciences
- Uganda National Academy of Sciences
- Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
- United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
- Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
- World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
- World Federation of Public Health Associations
- World Forestry Congress
- World Health Organization
- World Meteorological Organization
- Zambia Academy of Sciences
- Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,548
- 4,366
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
you're not answering the question. i implicitly accept the conclusions of the consensus majority opinion as far as published research goes. you're the contrarian and as such the onus is on you.
again, i don't need to. if we're measuring dicks you're the one that needs to show why you side with the tiny minority (many of whom, as below, aren't even climate scientists and clearly have not published enough of anything to sway mainstream opinion). i defer to the overwhelming majority opinion, and while i accept that "consensus" does not automatically = objective reality, i am merely asking you to support your contrarian viewpoint. starting with why you believe such a simple analysis as you have provided, has eluded the relevant professionals in the field.
Here's a list of people you are not qualified to disagree with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
and i am fine with a level of uncertainty about climate sensitivity (we have a lot to learn), as long as that uncertainty isn't misused for blatant denial.
well im hardly going to spend all ******* day on a stupid internet argument, am i?
the IPCC don't do the research, they do their best to collate it and dumb it down for policymakers. as i have already noted, the climate models that deniers complain about (the ones that haven't accurately predicted the so-called hiatus) are not designed to do so, and criticism of them for this is illogical. not to mention that even still, as already posted and ignored
i never said short-term trends are not part of AGW discussions, research or consideration. but we're talking about the long term models contrarians obsess over wrt the "hiatus". or at least i thought we were. maybe you changed the topic without letting me know and i missed it.
Whilst no one can fail to be impressed by your list it is basically irrelevant. How many had a vote amongst their members? Their has been much criticism of this within the Royal Society.
It doesn't take a genius to work out why they toe the government line. Not only that but its hardly unusual for acts like the below to happen
http://www.wwf.org.uk/about_wwf/press_centre/?unewsid=396
WWF-UK Chief Executive Robert Napier has been appointed the new chairman of the Met Office.
...
This is nonsense. Use of denier is just hysterical ranting by those without an argument.
Who denies the greenhouse gas theory? Who denies that man has influenced to some extent co2 emissions and thus temperatures?
Woeful straw man.
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,548
- 4,366
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 22,957
- 25,318
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
Please provide some evidence of this criticism. I suspect it's 'basically irrelevant' because it makes the cause of the deniers look ridiculous.
A meaningless assertion. Are you going to say this chap is in denial of reality? Really? Lets hear you demolish his argument.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9303&page=0
In one limited sense the members of the “do something about global warming” lobby are correct. If humans insist on giving the atmosphere an extra dose of carbon dioxide, then indeed one can expect Earth’s surface temperature to rise. To be strictly accurate, we should say that its temperature will be higher than it would have been otherwise. Either way, it doesn’t take a lot of physical knowledge and insight to accept the statement. It is rather the equivalent of saying that if one hits something with a bat then that something will respond. So it is true, as the lobby delights in telling us at every opportunity, that there is no longer much argument among scientists about the existence of the greenhouse global warming phenomenon. There never was.
It has not been solidly established, and it is certainly not accepted by the majority of scientists as proven fact, that global warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will be large enough to be seriously noticeable - let alone large enough to be disastrous.
..
Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge is an atmospheric physicist and was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research
Here are a couple.
http://www.thegwpf.org/royal-society-misrepresents-climate-science/
The paper was written and endorsed by the following experts:
Prof Robert Carter
Prof Vincent Courtillot
Prof Freeman Dyson
Prof Christopher Essex
Dr Indur Goklany
Prof Will Happer
Prof Richard Lindzen
Prof Ross McKitrick
Prof Ian Plimer
Dr Matt Ridley
Sir Alan Rudge
Prof Nir Shaviv
Prof Fritz Vahrenholt
http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...nothing-but-a-lobby-group-for-climate-change/
The Royal Society has jeopardised both its purpose and integrity by becoming a lobbyist for the climate change industry, a Fellow of the Society has said. Writing for the Mail on Sunday, Professor Michael Kelly has said that the Society has become dogmatic in its support for man-made global warming theory, ignoring the complexities of the science. He has also accused Britain of “leading the world in climate change hypocrisy.”
..
This is not the first time that the concerns of Fellows have been glossed over. Five years ago, Prof Kelly was one of 43 Fellows of the Royal Society to write to the then-president to warn “that the Society was in danger of violating its founding principle, summed up in its famous motto ‘Nullius in verba’ – or ‘Don’t take another’s word for it; check it out for yourself’.
“The reason for our warning was a Society document which stated breezily: ‘If you don’t believe in climate change you are using one of the following [eight] misleading arguments.’” he said.
Your use of the term denier is making you look like a cheerleading twat.
Last edited:
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,548
- 4,366
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
lol, no there was never much argument among scientists but quite clearly there was in the public sphere, the legislature etc. christ, the US senate went all wingnut earlier this year ffs.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/us-senate-man-climate-change-global-warming-hoax
well, that would depend on what we define as "serious" or "noticeable", wouldn't it? quite clearly it is measureable already. if the more extreme projections become reality, say a 6 degree increase of average temps in ~150 years, then i would say it was both. keep it down to less than 2 degrees, then still noticeable but probably not disastrous.
first it was 'the world isn't warming', then it became 'ok it's warming but we don't know why', then 'ok maybe some of it is due to human causes', and now 'well we don't really know it'll be serious'. whatever, i don't really give two shits about that part of the debate. it's the partisan political bullshit, denial of science and slander of scientists that pisses me off. i won't be around in 150 years to see how it all panned out.
Noone has proven the AGW argument re temperature increases. See below. Stating exactly what he does is NOT denial of science nor slander.
It is deeply shameful that alarmists come out with such propaganda.
"So it is true, as the lobby delights in telling us at every opportunity, that there is no longer much argument among scientists about the existence of the greenhouse global warming phenomenon. There never was.
It has not been solidly established, and it is certainly not accepted by the majority of scientists as proven fact, that global warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will be large enough to be seriously noticeable - let alone large enough to be disastrous."
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 22,957
- 25,318
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
You really do struggle with facts and the real world, don't you?
uh huh. just because we don't have another planet to experiment on doesn't refute the research lol.
This is such a rubbish argument. It's blatantly untrue.
There is not a single peer-reviewed paper anywhere in the worl0, with empirical evidence that:
a.) human C02 emissions are the main driver of warming or,
b.) That human emissions of C02 are dangerous.
Not one.
It's also a myth that there is a consensus. The whole "97% of scientists agree" comment is used by alarmists. Where did the 97% come from? The University of Illinois sent out an email to 10,000 scientists, asking 2 questions, worded in such a way that even I would answer yes to them. Only 77 people responded and 75 of them answered yes to the two questions. 75/77 is 97%
That's where the 97% comes fr0 - 75 friggin people. It's a joke.
Of nearly 12,000 papers on global warming, only a fraction of a percent came to the conclusion that human emissions of C02 were dangerously warming the planet, and none of those few had empirical evidence to support this. Only 64 out of 11,944 papers as endorsing the version of “scientific consensus” when it was claimed it was a 97.1% consensus. http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/monckton-honey-i-shrunk-the-consensus/ At www.petitionproject.org there are 32,000 scientists (including 9,000 PHD's) who disagree about the alarmist view of global warming.[/QUOTE]
Similar threads
