... Go and have a BEX and a good lie down, in or about the late 50's.
Well, fortunately for you, I am not the teacher, and macca isn't your grandchild...
Haha - now what did I do to deserve such a swipe??? Sounds like you are deliberately trolling to flame emotions.
But I laugh at the desperation of the left who resort to personal attacks. It seems you guys have nothing left to defend!!!
SD wasn't offended by my question, so why should you be?
This is a quote lifted from a direct link From maccas artical:
Use it next time your 'helping' your kids and grand kids with their home work/indoctrination?.
It is not too late to attend remedial English classes.
I hope you confine "your 'helping' your kids and grand kids with their home work" to indoctrination Please don't attempt to help them with English. Maybe they could help you.
It is a hypothesis as far as I can ascertain and there are many who don't believe it is fact at all. It is still controversial.
Do you mind if I ask how you came to that conclusion, namely that it is controversial.
Do you mind if I ask how you came to that conclusion, namely that it is controversial.
Do you mind if I ask how you came to that conclusion, namely that it is controversial.
You might have to read a bit more, SD...
I passively used to accept AGW as fact a couple of years or so ago, but after reading the threads and both sides of the argument, I realised it probably wasn't as cut and dried as I thought.
Then, when asking genuine questions here at ASF, one smart AGWer called me a "denier"...Silly person - that got my shackles up as that approach was way too cult-like, imo. However, that dumb statement really made me sit up and think that this was probably more of a cult than being realistic.
So, I started to research both sides with more interest and decided that the AGW and "climate change" seems to be more about taking money from people than actually doing anything for the environment. And, I haven't noticed any real change in weather in my 60+ years on the planet.
The media are all carrying on about a heat wave here in Qld, and I agree it's hot, but I have known it hotter. My second child was born two months before the 1972 heat wave - now that's a heat wave with temps soaring above 110 degs for almost two weeks without a cloud in the sky and on the sunshine coast (not out west where temps can climb even higher under normal conditions). We were giving extra water to the baby and bathing every couple of hours. No air cons either! That was 40 years ago so I do have trouble buying into the propaganda that we are experiencing something worse than we have had before.
...If that will be too annoying, I'm happy to let it go without comment as we have had good discussions previously about the difference in the level of details we operate at and is why I asked whether you minded first instead of just jumping in.
In a field where temperature variations over a decade are barely sufficient to confirm a trend, the focus by some on annual, monthly or even daily temperatures to support particular cases can be inane. While activists continually urge people to "accept the science", often too little attention is paid to the deliberations and debates within the scientific community. New Scientist this week published research suggesting sea level rises caused by global warming could lead to cooler oceans that could in turn reduce global temperatures, creating greater weather variability. We will always be confronted by floods, fires, droughts and storms. Whether climate or weather, we still have much to learn, as we look to take appropriate precautions in dealing with both.
Honestly this subject has been thrashed to death here and I don't want to get into in-depth discussions on it.
Any thoughts on why people keep posting comments then? I'm responding to what gets posted now as opposed to rehashing the past. Obviously I don't understand the rules well enough
A little common sense is needed.
In a field where temperature variations over a decade are barely sufficient to confirm a trend, the focus by some on annual, monthly or even daily temperatures to support particular cases can be inane.
The Australian said:While activists continually urge people to "accept the science", often too little attention is paid to the deliberations and debates within the scientific community. New Scientist this week published research suggesting sea level rises caused by global warming could lead to cooler oceans that could in turn reduce global temperatures, creating greater weather variability. We will always be confronted by floods, fires, droughts and storms. Whether climate or weather, we still have much to learn, as we look to take appropriate precautions in dealing with both.
New Scientist said:And the temporary cooling would be deceptive. Due to the greenhouse effect, the planet as a whole would still be accumulating heat - it's just that vast amounts of heat would be going into melting ice and warming water. "It's a redistribution of heat energy," says Daniel Sigman of Princeton University, who studies the end of the last ice age and was not involved in Hansen's work.
...
Most climate scientists think the "freezer door" will remain firmly shut this century, but not Hansen. He has longed warned that there could be a huge rise in sea level this century and, with colleagues Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy, he recently simulated the possible effects. Hansen included a brief summary of some of the results in an analysis of Greenland ice loss released in December. He told New Scientist a full paper is being prepared for publication, but would not discuss the details.
...
Other climate scientists are reluctant to comment before seeing the full details, but Sigman points out that climate modellers have long done experiments looking at the complex effects of melting ice sheets. These experiments also typically show regional cooling, but in Hansen's simulation the effect is much greater. The likely reason for the difference is because his simulation assumes a much more rapid acceleration of ice loss, doubling every 10 years.
Wikipedia said:On public policy, Hansen is critical of what he sees as efforts to mislead the public on the issue of climate change. He points specifically to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's commercials with the tagline "carbon dioxide””they call it pollution, we call it life", and politicians who accept money from fossil-fuel interests and then describe global warming as "a great hoax." He also says that changes needed to reduce global warming do not require hardship or reduction in the quality of life, but will also produce benefits such as cleaner air and water, and growth of high-tech industries. He was a critic of both the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations' stances on climate change. Addressing the potential effects of climate change, Hansen has stated in an interview in January, 2009, "We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."
I find what The Australian wrote to be misleading of the New Scientist article, let alone the unpublished paper, wouldn't you? The deliberation and debate is about the extent of the damage. I'll read the published paper and post back here if you would like? I'd also be happy to discuss the Met Office story mentioned in the editorial? That is another fascinating story
Climate change, no matter what your view, has largely become an article of faith. Supporters don't usually question it, and few change sides. The same could be said of big dams and nuclear energy - they have their supporters and their opponents but in both cases it tends to be more about faith than science.
If climate change were a purely scientific issue then it could be settled in a sense. But it is not really a scientific issue.
...............If climate change were a purely scientific issue then it could be settled in a sense.
I agree with all but this.e.
From a scientific perspective, there is no way the issue can be remotely anything approaching settled in my opinion.
There is valid peer review studies coming to incongruous conclusions... and hell, there may even be political/religious reasons for that in biased study design. But overall this is a 'soft science' endeavour, subject to all sorts of bias and leaps of faith... and soft science predicated on soft science hypotheses taken as fact etc.
I am firmly of the view that it is a field that deserves study, but not the kind it is presently receiving. IMO this is not proper science at all, hence your observations.
..... I feel like a broken record.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?