Climate change another name for Weather

[wayneL]

I have backed up my points.
You have backed out of any reasoned debate.
Yet again you fail to substantiate your view.
Perhaps there's a positive correlation between ego and gutless wonderment?

I have substantiated and backed up my views right throughout this thread and I have provided links ad nasaeum and debated extensively. But you ignore this and go on this petulant, puerile, petty and untruthful attack.

My previous post is entirely vindicated here. You have obviously lost control of your emotions and now to be taken even less seriously than before.

When in a hole stop digging.

Chill.

 

[Calliope]

I have backed up my points.
You have backed out of any reasoned debate.
Yet again you fail to substantiate your view.
Perhaps there's a positive correlation between ego and gutless wonderment?

Wayne,

Why don't you do as you are told. The GWs will not tolerate disobedience. They will find ways of making you talk when they take over completely.

 

[wayneL]

Wayne,

Why don't you do as you are told. The GWs will not tolerate disobedience. They will find ways of making you talk when they take over completely.

we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender!

 

[rederob]

It's the sun! CO2 in the atmosphere has a miniscule effect. It's as clear as day to me. Try it on a cold winter night. Pump your house full of CO2 and see how you go.
Alternatively, wait for the sun to rise in the morning, and compare the two.

If you pumped your house full of CO2 and the sun shone upon it (ie the CO2)you would be wise to not be there for breakfast as it will cook itself.
Even the climate change skeptics are aware of the physics of radiative forcing.
Moreover, without an atmosphere the sun would only transfer energy to the surface of the planet, and all other energy would be lost as it radiates back into "outer space".

 

[slim pickins]

indeed you will all submit to their ideology! Hehehehe.

I just realized the "cap & trade" proposal for industry is known as the "tax and trade system". But it also has the effect of rationing energy in practical terms.

Now when you consider the GW movement wants to ration our bathwater etc it's easy to draw the comparison with their rationing cousins, the communists, who advocated the rationing of everything from eggs to toilet paper.

I suggest you look up "the red nightmare" part 1 to 6, on YouTube to just try and imagine life under an environmentalist dictatorship!

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender!

Just don't fart mate,

You'll end up in a concentration camp.

gg

 

[rederob]

I have substantiated and backed up my views right throughout this thread and I have provided links ad nasaeum and debated extensively. But you ignore this and go on this petulant, puerile, petty and untruthful attack.

My previous post is entirely vindicated here. You have obviously lost control of your emotions and now to be taken even less seriously than before.

When in a hole stop digging.

Chill.

Rant all you like.

I asked you to examine the issue of land ice versus sea ice, after you trotted out one of your famously misleading quotes.
Result: No contest.

You are incapable of understanding how obliquity affected radiative forcings during the MWP, and love to trot out the visual bucolic of farms in Greenland to support your natural climate stance. As global warming continues to severely impact Greenland you might see farms there again, in your lifetime, without the need for a change to the earth's axis.

You purport semblances of "balance" yet repeatedly fail to understand the underlying context or interests that suggest an opposite reality.

You are so poorly educated on the issues that you don't even know how well you have been conned.

 

[Julia]

julia,
as someone stated earlier, their true agenda is something similar to the communists. To control money, power, resources and thoughts. The net result will be an impoveished population an impoversihed country lack of freedom but their total control.

Why would a group do such a thing? Well there is no logic to their actions. It's like asking why did the world have to live in fear of communism for 70 years. Why did the reds bankrupt their countries take away freedoms and try to impose their will on us? Hard to say. Maybe they didn't like proof that there were better systems of government.

Similarly, greens claim their will must be imposed on the world cause thevplanet is in danger. In danger from modernity, wealth, freedom and rising living standards. Don't forget their claim that the world is overpopulated. That's the really scarry bit.

My parents lived in a commnist country. And I've heard all the stories of the creeping terror, government mandating that noone will have a fridge larger than 1 cubic metre, Noone except government officials will have a car larger then a certain number of horsepower. Noone to have a water heater over 50 liters in size.

It's eerely similar to the current green proposals of forcing us drive lawnmowers to work and wanting us to share bathater.

Oh no, the dams are empty in Sydney because we have an extra million people and haven't built a dam for 35 years. Oh no, it's the fault of global warming!

Thanks for reply, Slim pickins.
Your description of your parents' life in a communist country is scary.
This stuff is creeping in here. e.g. Only x litres of water allowed per person per day in Brisbane (and maybe in other places?), mooted inspection of homes to ensure water saving devices fitted etc etc.

Presumably the hope is that the people will gradually forget that there are water shortages because of the lack of planning by successive incompetent governments.

I've removed the water saving device from the shower heads. Don't necessarily want a long shower but I do want a decent flow of water.

 

[Julia]

You keep quoting junk scientists and lay people to support your propositions.

Could you please supply a definition of a "junk scientist".
What makes one scientist's work "junk" and another's "worthy" or "valid"?

 

[mayk]

Rant all you like.

I asked you to examine the issue of land ice versus sea ice, after you trotted out one of your famously misleading quotes.
Result: No contest.

You are incapable of understanding how obliquity affected radiative forcings during the MWP, and love to trot out the visual bucolic of farms in Greenland to support your natural climate stance. As global warming continues to severely impact Greenland you might see farms there again, in your lifetime, without the need for a change to the earth's axis.

You purport semblances of "balance" yet repeatedly fail to understand the underlying context or interests that suggest an opposite reality.

You are so poorly educated on the issues that you don't even know how well you have been conned.

Sir,

Do you know that science based on data is not a universal truth as 2+2=4.

When you say most of the scientific organizations (which are political entities) support CG theory, you seem to ignore the blatant truth that they are getting money for research from govt. Environmental scientist were largely ignored in recent history and they want to get maximum mileage out of this, just like any other entity would do.

Have you ever seen the research culture in universities? You have to understand the politics in Academia. If you go against the flow you won't get a tenure and most of these scientist depend on that. Free thinking is not that free in Academia, sadly. Most scientists, at the end of their career, start to publish some truth. But again most of their publications are written by young grad students who do not want to get their chances diminished by challenging the heavy weights in their field.

Research has been turned in to an industry, and the same business models are running in Academia. Free thinkers are few and far between because they have to secure the next round of funding, which they can only get if their proposal include that they want to create "energy efficient" or "green" bu*l Sh*t. Don't believe me check the latest funding grants from Australian Research Council (ARC).

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

rederob,

You are so poorly educated on the issues that you don't even know how well you have been conned.

I believe Wayne has an opinion much like I do which upsets some because it is not in line with the smooth redistribution of wealth.

Mr Taleb has a good essay on prediction you should read. You can find it in his Black Swan book. I highly recommend the investigation of it. I too am interested in the answers to Julia's questions.

 

[rederob]

Could you please supply a definition of a "junk scientist".
What makes one scientist's work "junk" and another's "worthy" or "valid"?

There are ample links via google, and it was discussed earlier in this thread.
But a quick demonstration.
Lord Monckton: "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered" (2008) has a section on forcing that bypasses the accepted physics and instead focuses on temperature variations and the effects of feedback. He goes on to suggest that models need to use low value feedback parameters lest they become unstable, Yet his conservative conclusuions are derived from the highest value feedback parameters which he earlier argued against.

 

[rederob]

Sir,

Do you know that science based on data is not a universal truth as 2+2=4.

When you say most of the scientific organizations (which are political entities) support CG theory, you seem to ignore the blatant truth that they are getting money for research from govt. Environmental scientist were largely ignored in recent history and they want to get maximum mileage out of this, just like any other entity would do.

These are not things you can attribute to me, so perhaps redirect.

However, to give you a fighting chance at understanding what is at issue with global warming, do some research on the debate that led to chlorofluorocarbons being banned.

I can get you started: In 1980, Du Pont instigated the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy, an anti-regulatory industry lobby group. When Ronald Reagan took office Du Pont suspended further research for alternatives to CFCs, knowing that there would be no political pressure for immediate action. As late as 1986, the Alliance was still arguing that the science was too uncertain to justify any action.

 

[Calliope]

Now when you consider the GW movement wants to ration our bathwater etc it's easy to draw the comparison with their rationing cousins, the communists, who advocated the rationing of everything from eggs to toilet paper.

The GW equivalent of the KGB will have a surveillance camera in your toilet.
Use two squares and you will get a knock on your door at 2AM and dragged off for interrogation and political indoctrination.

 

[Smurf1976]

I've long argued on this forum that the big problem with environmentalists and this debate is that they won't accept the measures needed to actually reduce CO2.

They say we must do it, survival depends on it etc then start a campaign against practically anything that actually provides a viable lower (or no) CO2 alternative.

It's comparable to saying you want to cut down on binge drinking then starting a campaign to ban the sale of soft drinks and water in pubs. Anyone with even modest intelligence can see that you are directly opposing any workable measure, except outright shutting down of the entire industry, that would help deliver what you claim to want.

But that's effectively what environmentalists have been doing with energy since the very inception of the mainstream environmental movement. They hate hydro and nuclear, the only two large scale clean energy sources actually in use, with a passion that has to be seen to be believed. They say gas is OK but then oppose attempts to find, extract or process it. They say wind is a good alternative but then protest the construction of wind farms.

There's just no pleasing these people unless you are going to literally turn out the lights and stop the wheels turning. That situation reeks of an agenda far wider than a simple concern about emissions of CO2.

Another classic example of this situation in the news today. They say it's better to use gas but then oppose it being done in locations that would be economic. A nice backdoor way of simply shutting down the industry whilst claiming it would be OK if relocated - it's a bit hard to move a gas field just like it's rather hard to remove a uranium ore body or a river to somewhere the greens find more acceptable. Just like they claim to support pulp mills, but only in places remote from existing industry (seems a rather strange argument) with high infrastructure and transport costs. That is, places where it wouldn't be viable to build one anyway. All up, a nice way of saying you're not against everything when in practice you are. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/24/2454714.htm?section=australia

 

[mayk]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472164,00.html

Children's Books Use Christmas to Push Global Warming Agenda


Global warming alarmists, picking up where the Grinch left off, are trying to steal Christmas, some critics say. From children's books to school plays, the climate change crowd is dreaming of a green Christmas, angering opponents who say 'tis NOT the season to be preachy.

 

[Smurf1976]

Nothing makes me cringe more than seeing young children forced into protest marches, blockades etc. They're not voicing a considered opinion, they don't even comprehend the issue. It's blatant use of children for political gain and it stinks in my opinion.

As for this particular example, there's only one way for Santa to go Green and that's to stop giving out presents. If you're going to tell the kids something then tell them the truth - the whole concept of giving kids toys etc isn't in the slightest way Green.

 

[wayneL]

Rant all you like.

I asked you to examine the issue of land ice versus sea ice, after you trotted out one of your famously misleading quotes.
Result: No contest.

You are incapable of understanding how obliquity affected radiative forcings during the MWP, and love to trot out the visual bucolic of farms in Greenland to support your natural climate stance. As global warming continues to severely impact Greenland you might see farms there again, in your lifetime, without the need for a change to the earth's axis.

You purport semblances of "balance" yet repeatedly fail to understand the underlying context or interests that suggest an opposite reality.

You are so poorly educated on the issues that you don't even know how well you have been conned.

Has the President of the Czech Republic also been conned, or is it like he says and it's the likes of you that have been conned?

Considering your utterly dogmatic approach, indicating indoctrination, perhaps even brainwashing, I think it likely the latter.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Just don't fart mate,

You'll end up in a concentration camp.

gg

Has the President of the Czech Republic also been conned, or is it like he says and it's the likes of you that have been conned?

Considering your utterly dogmatic approach, indicating indoctrination, perhaps even brainwashing, I think it likely the latter.

Dear Wayne,

I've always suspected you of being a farter.

All Czechs are of your ilk , from my experience , at least the young ladies I met some years ago on a trip through middle Europe..

Only Greens don't fart.

Constipation rules in their tiny dry world of ignored kak.

Happy Christmas mate.

gg

 

[wayneL]

Sir,

Do you know that science based on data is not a universal truth as 2+2=4.

When you say most of the scientific organizations (which are political entities) support CG theory, you seem to ignore the blatant truth that they are getting money for research from govt. Environmental scientist were largely ignored in recent history and they want to get maximum mileage out of this, just like any other entity would do.

Have you ever seen the research culture in universities? You have to understand the politics in Academia. If you go against the flow you won't get a tenure and most of these scientist depend on that. Free thinking is not that free in Academia, sadly. Most scientists, at the end of their career, start to publish some truth. But again most of their publications are written by young grad students who do not want to get their chances diminished by challenging the heavy weights in their field.

Research has been turned in to an industry, and the same business models are running in Academia. Free thinkers are few and far between because they have to secure the next round of funding, which they can only get if their proposal include that they want to create "energy efficient" or "green" bu*l Sh*t. Don't believe me check the latest funding grants from Australian Research Council (ARC).

This is such a huge factor in science nowadays.

I have a friend, a PhD who is in a position of oversight on any research conducted in a particular field (not climate science, but another controversial area*). She, with a flourishing roll of her eyes, will totally confirm what you have just said here.

Says 99% of most papers are total rubbish, even admits her PhD thesis was total rubbish. The process is:

1/ Determine conclusion that will get funding.

2/ Design research to support conclusion.

3/ Avoid at all costs, data that contradicts conclusion.

4/ Publish paper with aim of getting further funding.

5/ NEVER, go against the prevailing thought process

6/ Rinse and repeat


*I won't say what as she will be easily identified.

I also used to get all the research on equine exercise physiology when I was a horse trainer. Most of the research was totally laughable based on how the experiments were set up and conducted.

One small example which was repeated with startling regularity and stupidity, is drawing conclusions on maximal performance based an sub-maximal exercise. ie doing tests at a canter and purporting the result to be applicable at a flat out gallop under whip... ludicrous. Aim: to flog some powder or something like that as a miracle performance enhancer to racehorse trainers at miraculous markups.

The ruse works, but the powder never does.

It's disgraceful, but that is the environment we're in.

I admire honest scientists, as it is often at the cost of advancement in their career.

Back to climate science; if someones wants to advance in that field, it would be suicide to draw any conclusions that did not support the IPCC hypothesis.