Wouldn't it be a hoot if I were to sue you for promising global warming and not delivering. On your advice I didn't buy reverse cycle a/c. I am now freezing my butt off on the Bleak Coast in 'sunny" S/E Queensland.
Yeh and looks like sand on which to sunbake getting scarce again up your way too.
....and this is relevant because?
Increasing extremes of weather events indicating climate change on the move even in paradise.
On where this started a few posts back, colder mornings were discussed. Caused by warmer air, particularly at the poles leading to increased cloud, more hot and cold, juxtaposed into higher winds, seas, rain and storms in some places and less in others.
The problem we have is that the extremes to the wet and cold side lead those opposed to the idea of global warming to say "aha, it is all false"
These points were explained to the US Congress in 1988 by NASA Scientist James Hanson.
Hansen..LOL
Man has certainly affected the beachfront, but I suggest you encompass a range of anthropogenic and natural factors when considering beach erosion, rather than rushing to blame AGW.
Just one easily found article http://www.stratacommunity.org.au/strata-living/coastal-erosion-natures-way-or-man-made-problem
You might want to check your weather stats too
Damn those scientists. They should be banned from doing research that doesn't agree with Conservative orthodoxies.
That's your retort the McQuarrie's disgraceful treatment of Murry Salby, that scientists must conform to CONSERVATIVE dogma?
Dude, I suppose you have seen Salby's case?
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/ma...s-blackbans-strands-and-abandons-murry-salby/
Cookesque bullsh*t aside ladies, what do you have to say about Salby's Claims?
The case of Salby is an interesting one that Crikey has monitored for some months. So what happened to him? Macquarie University says it terminated him because he refused to teach as required and breached the university's travel rules. He claims he was treated poorly and denied resources, and links this to his research on greenhouse gas emissions. Salby, who has spoken twice at the Sydney Institute, hints his sacking might have been something to do with this op-ed in The Australian in April (he notes that some senior staff on the Climate Commission, which he criticises in the op ed, are also employed at Macquarie):
Crikey looked into this piece at the time because it makes some bold claims. The piece challenges a report by the government-funded Climate Commission that had said Australia's 2012-2013 summer was hot and "angry" due in part to climate change. Salby claims temperature data from the Bureau of Meteorology is not robust, and he makes serious claims that the BOM's temperature records are "routinely readjusted" in a manner that is opaque and "discretionary". This claim, which could be interpreted to indicate the BOM is faking temperature data, incensed the bureau, which said this (read BOM's seven-page response to Crikey's enquiry here):
Salby, who has spoken twice at the Sydney Institute, hints his sacking might have been something to do with this op-ed in The Australian in April (he notes that some senior staff on the Climate Commission, which he criticises in the op ed, are also employed at Macquarie):
Crikey looked into this piece at the time because it makes some bold claims. The piece challenges a report by the government-funded Climate Commission that had said Australia's 2012-2013 summer was hot and "angry" due in part to climate change. Salby claims temperature data from the Bureau of Meteorology is not robust, and he makes serious claims that the BOM's temperature records are "routinely readjusted" in a manner that is opaque and "discretionary". This claim, which could be interpreted to indicate the BOM is faking temperature data, incensed the bureau, which said this (read BOM's seven-page response to Crikey's enquiry here):
"The Bureau stands by its climate analysis that portrays the last Australian summer as exceptional. So many temperature records were broken over such a wide area of the continent during this summer past, that it is absurd to argue otherwise. The Bureau rejects assertions that surface based climate observations made and analysed by the Bureau of Meteorology are somehow fatally flawed."
.........
So Salby's op-ed for The Australian, which claims to show that the climate is not warming insofar as Australian summers are not getting hotter, is based on records taken up to 10 kilometres above the earth's surface, which "don't always align" with temperatures on the earth's surface.
So astronauts have no need to worry about climate change, then.
Orr,
Just to let you know I will address this in my own time, and it will be like taking candy from a baby.
I'll see you a snide and raise you a dose of reality (sans de rigueur leftist ad hom).
Dude just a bit of background;
This is wayneL's response to a request to critique the Koch's brothers sponsored climate report that confirmed the work of James Hansen with regards predictions from as far back as the mid 80's, see my post#3336 from april last year. No response ever came.
So as to the the pit fall you've set for wayneL above? can we only assume he's 'Pleading the Fifth' ' ? again...
As for Salby: Where will the ever thinning ranks of 'the Merchants of Doubt' find the solace of their own 'leper island' to see out their affected lives. My I suggest a low lying one.
To save waiting for me, just read outside of where you know you'll feed your raging confirmation bias. Answers are there for the open minded
Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
Repost This
Comment on this StoryEmail this story
This is a guest post by James Lawrence Powell.*
Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.
I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.
I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.
.... By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.
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?