Climate Change Arguing

[Engimal v3]

Anti-science agenda? Reminds me of the Climategate e-mail revelations.

I posted the following in another thread, you probably misssed it.

10 years ago when I discussed this issue at length, initially from a totally agnostic perspective with several warmongers I noted that the US Association of State Climatologists had had a couple of Presidents of their Association squeezed out for daring to speak out against the AGW orthodoxy. Despite this in 2002 however, the association voted almost unanimously for a statement shifting the focus of emphasis from CO2, to land use.



You only have to start looking at some of the temperature stations to see they were right;

Let's compare two sites from the same state that have been recording temps for at least 100 years. The first one is a good site (Orland, CA). It still remains unaffected by external man-made influences. The second, (Marysville, CA) is a poor site that has been allowed to become more & more affected by such influences. The temperature trends of each are markedly different. It would be hard to argue that the local man-made factors have played absolutely no part in this.

View attachment 748226
(ORLAND, CALIFORNIA)





View attachment 748229View attachment 748231
(MARYSVILLE, CALIFORNIA)

Someone who took a good look at the site said - "The Marysville station is located behind the fire department building on a patio. In addition to the sensor being surrounded by asphalt and concrete, its also within 10 feet of buildings, and within 8 feet of a large metal cell tower that could be felt radiating heat. Additionally, air conditioning units on the cell tower electronics buildings vent copious amounts of warm air within 10 feet of the sensor. It is the site reviewers opinion that this USHCN site can no longer provide accurate data and should be removed from the USHCN list"

That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Don't muddy the waters with BS please, you are again denying basic scientific data because it doesn't suit your ant-science agenda, gmab mate.

A scientist who is anti-science......

Hahahahahahahahaha

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Anti-science agenda? Reminds me of the Climategate e-mail revelations.

I posted the following in another thread, you probably misssed it.

10 years ago when I discussed this issue at length, initially from a totally agnostic perspective with several warmongers I noted that the US Association of State Climatologists had had a couple of Presidents of their Association squeezed out for daring to speak out against the AGW orthodoxy. Despite this in 2002 however, the association voted almost unanimously for a statement shifting the focus of emphasis from CO2, to land use.



You only have to start looking at some of the temperature stations to see they were right;

Let's compare two sites from the same state that have been recording temps for at least 100 years. The first one is a good site (Orland, CA). It still remains unaffected by external man-made influences. The second, (Marysville, CA) is a poor site that has been allowed to become more & more affected by such influences. The temperature trends of each are markedly different. It would be hard to argue that the local man-made factors have played absolutely no part in this.

View attachment 748226
(ORLAND, CALIFORNIA)





View attachment 748229View attachment 748231
(MARYSVILLE, CALIFORNIA)

Someone who took a good look at the site said - "The Marysville station is located behind the fire department building on a patio. In addition to the sensor being surrounded by asphalt and concrete, its also within 10 feet of buildings, and within 8 feet of a large metal cell tower that could be felt radiating heat. Additionally, air conditioning units on the cell tower electronics buildings vent copious amounts of warm air within 10 feet of the sensor. It is the site reviewers opinion that this USHCN site can no longer provide accurate data and should be removed from the USHCN list"

Same stuff happens here in Australia. Here in Perth our local BOM is so AGW propagandist it's not funny. Some years ago when they weren't seeing the temperature increases they were hoping for, they moved Perth's official temperature station to a much warmer site, further away from the river. If that wasn't enough, in 2011 they changed the thermometer at the new station to a different type, known for reading on the higher side and bingo, in that year Perth experienced record heat.

Pretty damning.

As a scientist, how do you feel about what i would call "agenda driven science"?

 

[Socrates2]

Wind and solar aren't developed, installed and used for free either. People have made a lot of money from that.

Great argument not. How come everytime there is compelling data presented you and your mates try and discredit it .Do you understand what clean energy is? Now you're trying to discredit solar and wind because people make profit from it. Are you a socialist? Lol

 

[Socrates2]

Pretty damning.

As a scientist, how do you feel about what i would call "agenda driven science"?

Why don't you guys try to make sense instead of blindly backing up your mates with furphys and pseudo-science? It's a pathetic backwards boys club. You probably think Angus Taylor, Scomo and Barnaby Joyce are decent blokes when in reality they are the scumbags of the earth.Have a good laugh this summer when it hits 47°C and have a good laugh when the Murray Darling becomes an ecological disaster. Funny stuff hey! But as long as you say the opposite of 'lefties' , everything is ok. Typical liberal/national policy is do the opposite of 'lefties ' no matter how immoral, or bad policy. Great way to run a country hey fellas.You are all cowards, you don't have the guts to speak the truth anymore. Enjoy the summer heroes.

 

[ablett09]

These are surveys of scientists. A very, VERY small minority don't believe in man-made climate change. Show some evidence on the contrary or admit you're full of s**t.

Saying that 97% of climate scientists believe in man made climate change is not evidence either.
What is a scientific fact is that the planet can warm on its own as it has done many times before.

 

[ablett09]

Why don't you guys try to make sense instead of blindly backing up your mates with furphys and pseudo-science? It's a pathetic backwards boys club. You probably think Angus Taylor, Scomo and Barnaby Joyce are decent blokes when in reality they are the scumbags of the earth.Have a good laugh this summer when it hits 47°C and have a good laugh when the Murray Darling becomes an ecological disaster. Funny stuff hey! But as long as you say the opposite of 'lefties' , everything is ok. Typical liberal/national policy is do the opposite of 'lefties ' no matter how immoral, or bad policy. Great way to run a country hey fellas.You are all cowards, you don't have the guts to speak the truth anymore. Enjoy the summer heroes.

You do realise that in warmer weather the earth produces more food and less people get sick ?

 

[Socrates2]

Saying that 97% of climate scientists believe in man made climate change is not evidence either.
What is a scientific fact is that the planet can warm on its own as it has done many times before.

Lol, you're either a troll or not that bright mate.

 

[Socrates2]

You do realise that in warmer weather the earth produces more food and less people get sick ?

Lol, give it up champ you sound like a coal stooge. You're on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of common sense, worse still you're easily fooled and gullible.Keep it coming guys, after all you know more about scientific data than real scientists dont you? Don't you have moral fiber matey?

 

[Socrates2]

I didn't realise how many stupid people are out there, it's depressing.

 

[Taylor]

Great argument not. How come everytime there is compelling data presented you and your mates try and discredit it .Do you understand what clean energy is? Now you're trying to discredit solar and wind because people make profit from it. Are you a socialist? Lol

In response to your comments about Nuclear power making profits for rich people.

Is it about saving the planet or having the right people make money?

 

[ablett09]

Lol, you're either a troll or not that bright mate.

You didn't know the planet warms on its own ?

 

[Socrates2]

In response to your comments about Nuclear power making profits for rich people.

Is it about saving the planet or having the right people make money?

Why would you spend trillions of dollars on nuclear power infrastructure when you live in a sunny ,windy ,country? Why did Josh Friedenburg stop the proposed wind farm on Lord Howe island? Who donates to the liberal party? What does the CMFEU and Annastacia Palaszczuk want to do? Shore up the existing narrative for short term gain. Politicians think in year cycles, they don't giveva crap about how things look in 10 or 50 years time. Also doesn't Australia have an international obligation to decrease our emmissions considering we produce 5% of the world's CO2 and have the SECOND HIGHEST per capita emmisions in the WORLD?
Australia is an International pariah, Scomo won't even show up to global warming meeting. It's appalling leadership and irresponsible. Free market economics is about one thing, profit, and exploiting the environment is an easy and short-sighted way to make profit. Where's the ideas? Nuclear power? What about solar and wind? Why is the government not investing in clean power? Because the coal lobby has them in their pocket. Everyone knows that.
Also if your argument is 'I don't like being lectured to by lefties so I'll do the opposite' is ludicrous.

 

[ablett09]

Lol, give it up champ you sound like a coal stooge. You're on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of common sense, worse still you're easily fooled and gullible.Keep it coming guys, after all you know more about scientific data than real scientists dont you? Don't you have moral fiber matey?

You know what I am concerned about ? vulnerable Australians who are freezing in the winter and all those Australians who can't afford to pay their power bills.

On the other hand I am exceedingly happy that the earth has never had the capability of producing more food meaning less people go hungry.

I am not for coal or renewables but rather reliability and affordability.

 

[Socrates2]

You didn't know the planet warms on its own ?

You must very intelligent ,you know more than the experts, maybe you should enter politics like Malcom Roberts did. Thanks for the brain dead propaganda.

 

[Socrates2]

You know what I am concerned about ? vulnerable Australians who are freezing in the winter and all those Australians who can't afford to pay their power bills.

On the other hand I am exceedingly happy that the earth has never had the capability of producing more food meaning less people go hungry.

I am not for coal or renewables but rather reliability and affordability.

Great argument brainiac, straight from the Tony Abbott playbook.Maybe you should listen to someone like David Attenborough once in a while instead of the right wing media. I heard Tom Elliott on the radio yesterday and nearly threw up, his dad was a filthy racist as well, great family they are.

 

[ablett09]

You must very intelligent ,you know more than the experts, maybe you should enter politics like Malcom Roberts did. Thanks for the brain dead propaganda.

Can you tell us what the experts have to say about about the earth warming on its own ?

 

[Socrates2]

Can you tell us what the experts have to say about about the earth warming on its own ?

Stop it mate you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Taylor]

Why would you spend trillions of dollars on nuclear power infrastructure when you live in a sunny ,windy ,country? Why did Josh Friedenburg stop the proposed wind farm on Lord Howe island? Who donates to the liberal party? What does the CMFEU and Annastacia Palaszczuk want to do? Shore up the existing narrative for short term gain. Politicians think in year cycles, they don't giveva crap about how things look in 10 or 50 years time. Also doesn't Australia have an international obligation to decrease our emmissions considering we produce 5% of the world's CO2 and have the SECOND HIGHEST per capita emmisions in the WORLD?
Australia is an International pariah, Scomo won't even show up to global warming meeting. It's appalling leadership and irresponsible. Free market economics is about one thing, profit, and exploiting the environment is an easy and short-sighted way to make profit. Where's the ideas? Nuclear power? What about solar and wind? Why is the government not investing in clean power? Because the coal lobby has them in their pocket. Everyone knows that.
Also if your argument is 'I don't like being lectured to by lefties so I'll do the opposite' is ludicrous.

Why are you against nuclear power? It fixes the issue. If there weren't people with your attitude towards it back in 2006 then we would have near half our current emissions.

Nobody cares about per capita emissions by the way, that's where nations that contribute nothing are conned into thinking they can solve anything. Fact is that the total emissions of Australia are less than the increase year on year of the big emitters and Australia at zero emissions doesn't do anything.

But if we had nuclear power it would be an industry Australia could be a leader in.

 

[ablett09]

Stop it mate you're embarrassing yourself.

So you mean climate change experts can't explain how the climate changes ? Maybe you should stop listening to these experts.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Anti-science agenda? Reminds me of the Climategate e-mail revelations.

I posted the following in another thread, you probably misssed it.

10 years ago when I discussed this issue at length, initially from a totally agnostic perspective with several warmongers I noted that the US Association of State Climatologists had had a couple of Presidents of their Association squeezed out for daring to speak out against the AGW orthodoxy. Despite this in 2002 however, the association voted almost unanimously for a statement shifting the focus of emphasis from CO2, to land use.



You only have to start looking at some of the temperature stations to see they were right;

Let's compare two sites from the same state that have been recording temps for at least 100 years. The first one is a good site (Orland, CA). It still remains unaffected by external man-made influences. The second, (Marysville, CA) is a poor site that has been allowed to become more & more affected by such influences. The temperature trends of each are markedly different. It would be hard to argue that the local man-made factors have played absolutely no part in this.

View attachment 748226
(ORLAND, CALIFORNIA)





View attachment 748229View attachment 748231
(MARYSVILLE, CALIFORNIA)

Someone who took a good look at the site said - "The Marysville station is located behind the fire department building on a patio. In addition to the sensor being surrounded by asphalt and concrete, its also within 10 feet of buildings, and within 8 feet of a large metal cell tower that could be felt radiating heat. Additionally, air conditioning units on the cell tower electronics buildings vent copious amounts of warm air within 10 feet of the sensor. It is the site reviewers opinion that this USHCN site can no longer provide accurate data and should be removed from the USHCN list"

Same stuff happens here in Australia. Here in Perth our local BOM is so AGW propagandist it's not funny. Some years ago when they weren't seeing the temperature increases they were hoping for, they moved Perth's official temperature station to a much warmer site, further away from the river. If that wasn't enough, in 2011 they changed the thermometer at the new station to a different type, known for reading on the higher side and bingo, in that year Perth experienced record heat.

Thoughts Socrates2 ?

 

[Socrates2]

Why are you against nuclear power? It fixes the issue. If there weren't people with your attitude towards it back in 2006 then we would have near half our current emissions.

Nobody cares about per capita emissions by the way, that's where nations that contribute nothing are conned into thinking they can solve anything. Fact is that the total emissions of Australia are less than the increase year on year of the big emitters and Australia at zero emissions doesn't do anything.

But if we had nuclear power it would be an industry Australia could be a leader in.

Bad argument re per capita, are you suggesting Australia should be immune to their obligations? We export CO2 as well yeah? What's your motivation to recommend expensive dangerous nuclear (which has been laughed off by the experts) and coal. What is your problem with solar and wind exactly? You seem to think Australia is immune to everything else in the world.Why don't you take your arguments to the Pacific Islanders and see how far you get? #headinthesand

 

[Socrates2]

Thoughts Socrates2 ?

What are you trying to say mate?

 

[Socrates2]

So you mean climate change experts can't explain how the climate changes ? Maybe you should stop listening to these experts.

Lol, I'll listen to the robust science thanks boss not those of you who are gullible. I really don't think you understand the concept of science.It's boring measurements and data with conclusions.The whole world has moved on from this debate apart from Trump voters and right wing heroes on bigfooty.

 

[Taylor]

Bad argument re per capita, are you suggesting Australia should be immune to their obligations? We export CO2 as well yeah? What's your motivation to recommend expensive dangerous nuclear (which has been laughed off by the experts) and coal. What is your problem with solar and wind exactly? You seem to think Australia is immune to everything else in the world.Why don't you take your arguments to the Pacific Islanders and see how far you get? #headinthesand

Nuclear power would replace our fossil fuel power generation, it won't disrupt anything and doesn't require a shift or leap in technology.

The world had already done the trial run of nuclear power plants, there's over 450 in operation now producing clean power. All we had to do was get on board with that in 2006 and our emissions would be half what they are now. Not to mention that a national scale infrastructure project like that would have seen our economy massively boosted during the time of the GFC.

The pacific island nations should turn their attention to their neighbor in China (27x the emissions of Australia) or Japan (Over 3x the emissions of Australia) rather than trying to score political points with their people by pressuring Australia who, because of people who hold your position, is seen as a soft target.

Nothing Australia can do will help the pacific islands, but China could. Full nuclear plant roll out there would be massive.

What do you think happens when a pacific island nation squares up to China?