Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[macca]

Why have we got 2 threads on the same subject ?

This is simply another report on alleged AGW and should be part of the other thread IMO

 

[Knobby22]

It's actually a different subject about the closing of the window to act but very few have stayed on the subject and it has regressed to the standard expected.

 

[Calliope]

For pities sake open your eyes and see if you can learn something instead of being a leader and mouthpiece for lying dribble and nasty personal attack's .

I'm afraid you are showing your true colours, basilio. You have won recognition as leader of the hystericals. You even have a couple of followers on these pages, but you are clearly frustrated and angry that you are only preaching to the converted. Your new thread is an exercise in futility.

 

[sptrawler]

It's actually a different subject about the closing of the window to act but very few have stayed on the subject and it has regressed to the standard expected.

Well there is one thing for sure, if the window closes at least it ends the speculation.

 

[sails]

...And finally lets get it clear for the 1000th time. I don't make up my comments. I quote from people with far more knowledge and skills than you or I have in this field. Your attacking and dismissing virtually the whole scientific community in this field. And the consequences of being wrong are catastrophic.

You get them from blogs like skepticalscience...ROFL. No more or less scientific than blogs with differing opinions.

Try reading Jo Nova's for some balance: http://joannenova.com.au/ and articles like this from Menzies house: The Greens $2.3 Trillion Dollar Renewable Fantasy.

And Garth Paltridge has written about government funding for AGW science: A less-than-nobel consensus. (If the font is too difficult to read, copy and paste the article into Word or Open Office writer).

And you don't take any notice of these three guys in the video below who were interviewed by Bolt and who have impressive scientific qualifications? Listen to what Professor Garth Paltridge, Professor Peter Ridd and Professor Bob Carter have to say:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yMHuQthzeg

 

[wayneL]

Couldn't stop yourself could you Wayne ? Back to totally and compete BS. Back to personal attacks on me and anyone else who you want to bully as if that somehow changes what is happening in the rest of the world. (And exactly why do I have to justify my life to you ? And why the xxxx would I bother when I see how you twist every nonsensical statement under the sun into a grotesque parody ? )

Then trying to keep up the climate denier fantasies. The suggestion that somewhere there is some real science that somehow refutes all the research that extensively documents what is happening to our environment as a direct result of human actions.

There is no credible refutation of the work of climate scientists. Period. If there was it would be spelt out in science journals and carefully examined. The BEST report shattered the story that temperature rises were being misrepresented. Whats left is lies and misrepresentations from Monckton and co that are as phony as a $3 note.

For pities sake open your eyes and see if you can learn something instead of being a leader and mouthpiece for lying dribble and nasty personal attack's .

And finally lets get it clear for the 1000th time. I don't make up my comments. I quote from people with far more knowledge and skills than you or I have in this field. Your attacking and dismissing virtually the whole scientific community in this field. And the consequences of being wrong are catastrophic.

Just as you have trouble distinguishing science from propaganda, you have trouble distinguishing a personal attack from criticisms of behaviour.

By pointing out your (apparently arrogant and belligerent) hypocrisy, I have not called you a moron, idiot, cheater, liar etc. (Which you are apt to do I notice)

If I were on here preaching against pre-marital sex and adultery, all the while fornicating like there was no tomorrow, you would be well within your rights to call me out on that. Yet you believe you should somehow be sheltered from the same?

How precious of you my dear!

Repetitions of standard propaganda doesn't support your version of the purported science one iota... and continuous accusations of 'denial' when such is clearly not the case will endear you to no one.

Instead, it highlights the grotesque straw man argument hysterical alarmists such as yourself have attempted to construct... and failed.

You will find many of those arguing against you are taking substantive environmental measures in their own lives, which further debases, both morally and intellectually, your hollow sermons on CC.

In fact I am stunned by not only your hypocrisy, but your arrogance.

Now please note that I have not insulted your person one iota, merely criticized the most absurd of your views. So stop the whining misrepresentations of what I am doing here and man up, even if you are female.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

From now on, denial-siders can't use "fear mongering" as a valid argument.

"The government is just using this as a cash grab!! Hold onto your wallets, the government wants more tax from you!!" Isn't that fear mongering also?

PS. I'm not on either side.

 

[sails]

It's actually a different subject about the closing of the window to act but very few have stayed on the subject and it has regressed to the standard expected.

come on Knobby - you don't expect those of us who care about this country to sit on our hands and let a nonsense tax potentially rip this country apart?

Basilio has his own opinions, but they are NOT factual science as he likes to pretend. Most of AGW is based on computer modelling and, as such, is predictive only and NOT fact.

Actual data from space tells us that temperatures have NOT apparently risen anything like the modelling predicted - computer modelling can get things very wrong:

Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2011.png

And more information from this article poster earlier in the thread:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...issions-up-sharply-yet-temperatures-are-flat/

 

[wayneL]

"The government is just using this as a cash grab!! Hold onto your wallets, the government wants more tax from you!!" Isn't that fear mongering also?

Not if it's the truth.

 

[Knobby22]

I'm not for the tax, at least in its present form, and as many have said here it will make little difference. The article was about the failure of the world to change to less problematic energy supplies.

I'm rapt you are using satellite temperatures as it will be very interesting to see what happens when next El Niño happens. I am hoping La Nina lasts for ever under the new conditions but feel that option is faint.

I am also hoping that we have hit a new steady state at a higher temperature and everything will be OK as heat loss is achieved by other factors. This is more likely.

I am not as confident as many here that there will be no problems with increased carbon dioxide, but then again as many have pointed out, there are many other problems we are creating and it is very likely that something will come out of left field to surprise us.

 

[sails]

From now on, denial-siders can't use "fear mongering" as a valid argument.

"The government is just using this as a cash grab!! Hold onto your wallets, the government wants more tax from you!!" Isn't that fear mongering also?

PS. I'm not on either side.

It's not fear mongering if it's the truth. I'm more interested in history and actual data for the facts. How's the UK going with their green taxes - here are some articles from the Uk daily mail and the Guardian:

Green taxes 'hit tipping point that will damage jobs and investment'

The green tax con: Climate change levies are swallowed up by Treasury

And the EU:
Green group accuses China of climate blackmail

Surely it's not fear mongering to find out what's going on in other countries who have priced carbon before us?

 

[sails]

Not if it's the truth.

Agree...

And this article from the AGE (not a Murdoch paper...lol) that says this:

The federal government has set up a special unit to pitch its carbon-pricing policy, which polls show has failed to gain much traction among voters.

and from Eric Abetz (same article) and agree that taxpayers should NOT have to fund labor's propaganda and even more so when the majority didn't want the tax in the first place:

Liberal frontbencher Eric Abetz said today taxpayers should not have to fund a Labor "propaganda" unit, particularly given the impending carbon tax would break a Labor election promise.

"What this does in the minds of the Australian people is add insult to injury," he said.

Full article from the AGE: Labor sets up carbon tax spin unit

Anything that needs to be sold to the public with SPIN (aka propaganda) is not telling the full truth imo. Definition of Propaganda:

Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Shame on the spinners...

 

[Knobby22]

Agree...

Anything that needs to be sold to the public with SPIN (aka propaganda) is not telling the full truth imo. Definition of Propaganda:


Shame on the spinners...

You have to admit that there has been spinning in both directions.

 

[sails]

I'm rapt you are using satellite temperatures ...

Knobby, I am looking for the truth and believe that history and actual data gives us facts. Computer modelling is not factual - it is a predictive tool depending on it's inputs. Reliability will be proven as actual data comes to hand to tell us how those models are stacking up against reality. At this stage, it's not looking too good for the modelling as per the Forbes article below which I have posted earlier:

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Up Sharply, Yet Temperatures Are Flat?

 

[Gringotts Bank]

It's not fear mongering if it's the truth.

Fear is fear.... but everyone has a different truth, that's the problem. Your truth, their truth, the government's truth, china's truth.

Seems there's intelligent people on both sides of the fence. Each has their own truth. A bit like the Muslims vs the Christians....it will rage on until each side realizes their truth isn't true.

How much truth is there in a truth that can have an opposite truth?

 

[Knobby22]

Sails

I agree, the modelling is not worth much. And the temperture rise appears to have stopped but as many say we don't really understand how it works yet.

I said to Wayne about 5 years ago, we will know what will happen much better in ten years.

It will be extremely interesting to see what happens when the present El Nina ends. If the means starts dropping like the sine wave shown on the graph, believe me, I will be the first to celebrate.

 

[sails]

You have to admit that there has been spinning in both directions.

Paid for by taxpayers? I don't think so.

If you listen to the interview of Bolt to the three professors and read Garth Paltridge's article, you will find that those opposing AGW don't seem to get the same ease of funding - if any funding at all.

As one of the professors said on the video, a court case needs a prosecution and a defence in attempt to get to the truth. The case against AGW has not been given a fair go with funding, as far as I can see.

If Australians really want the truth as opposed to spin, then both sides of the AGW science debate should be given equal funding and equal media time so the public can become a jury and decide for themselves.

Much like the anti Murdoch media issues which seem more to be about shutting down one side of the political debate than anything else. If we want the truth, we need to have ALL the cards on the table so the people can make informed decisions at the polls.

If there labor/greens have nothing to hide politically or on science climate - why the push to try and shut down those with a differing, but often highly professional, opinion?

Let me restate: If we want the truth, we have to have ALL the information, imo.

 

[sails]

Sails

I agree, the modelling is not worth much. And the temperture rise appears to have stopped but as many say we don't really understand how it works yet.

I said to Wayne about 5 years ago, we will know what will happen much better in ten years.

It will be extremely interesting to see what happens when the present El Nina ends. If the means starts dropping like the sine wave shown on the graph, believe me, I will be the first to celebrate.

Knobby - I agree. I think this tax is way to premature especially in the light of this latest satellite data. Actual data will show us how accurate or not is climate science computer modelling.

I think it's somewhat crazy as our weather forecasters have some difficulty in getting next week's weather predicted accurately, let alone next month's.

How can they possibly predict the next 10 or 50 years with any accuracy? How can the 'science be settled' when that science is based on modelling? These are the questions that keep coming back to my mind. And a couple of years ago I was a passive warmist but have since found way too many inconsistencies imo...lol

 

[Knobby22]

Let me restate: If we want the truth, we have to have ALL the information, imo.

True, we are not that far apart. Spin, be it from News limited or the Government is another word for propaganda.

Debasing the arguments with propaganda turns off the public so they don't trust the sources.

The media's job is to provide the information but it is so debased it can only push barrows and reprint propaganda.

 

[wayneL]

Fear is fear.... but everyone has a different truth, that's the problem. Your truth, their truth, the government's truth, china's truth.

Seems there's intelligent people on both sides of the fence. Each has their own truth. A bit like the Muslims vs the Christians....it will rage on until each side realizes their truth isn't true.

How much truth is there in a truth that can have an opposite truth?

Anthropogenic climate change is an untestable hypothesis. Screeching about worst case disaster scenarios as if inevitable is fear mongering, as it is not tempered with the presentation of other possible scenarios.

That governments are taxing carbon dioxide with no chance of reducing emissions (probably increasing them) with likely zero net effect on the climate is demonstrably true. Dullard et al have already done it.