Oh bas. There is no disingenuity whatsoever, as by linking the article there is an invitation to read the whole.
I feel so sorry for you, struggling to see the dark side in everything, trying to alarm and depress all whom you come into contact with, obviously to try to mitigate some deep psychopathology of your own.
Why would you prefer to hold modelling and weasel statements above data and categorical and correct conclusions?
I rest my case.
Because I like to see the most honest representation of reality (particularly in something as critical as the our collective future) and deal with it Wayne rather than using cheery picked sentences, BS analysis and outright lies.
Because I like to see the most honest representation of reality (particularly in something as critical as the our collective future) and deal with it Wayne rather than using cheery picked sentences, BS analysis and outright lies.
Models are reality? Lies? Who is lying? The author?
Holy sheeit dude. I sincerely think you need therapy. Honestly bro, get help.
Models are reality? Lies? Who is lying? The author?
Holy sheeit dude. I sincerely think you need therapy. Honestly bro, get help.
How many of those hundreds of millions of people are riding bicycles, instead of automobiles, and forgoing overseas travel?What can we say Wayne ? I'm assuming for the sake of goodwill that your comments regarding the reality of CC, the causes and the likely effects are not directed to me personally. After all I am simply one person of hundreds of millions who has come to the same conclusions. So essentially when you paint a picture of me requiring therapy, being obsessed, dark and with a deep psychopathology you are throwing the xhit can over hundreds of millions of other people.
And why have we come to these conclusions? Essentially because the overwhelming majority of climate scientists have offered enough evidence to support this conclusion. Because we see the physical evidence of warming climate all around us. Because the climate records around the world also show an a rapid increase in temperatures. And because even if we can't be absolutely and totally sure that we are cooking the planet we are not prepared to ignore the current evidence in favour of a rapidly diminishing possibility "that it will all be right in the end there is nothing to worry about"
And your response to this situation is to say we are all obsessed with the dark side, having deep psychological problems and needing therapy. Wow.
Is this truly your idea or is simply the latest dark meme being circulated by deniers to muddy the waters? It reminds me of the poster saying that the Unibomber also accepted CC.
All I hear from you Wayne is the echo chamber of Donald Trump. He is also a total CC denier. He's loud, abusive, aggressive, and repeatedly wrong. But hey he is now the Republician nominee for Prez of the most powerful country in the world.
.......A denier never admits the possibility of changing his or her mind. Just ask a climate change denier what will convince him or her that climate change is real and caused by humans. I guarantee that he or she will not have a response. Evidence simply doesn't matter, so they have never considered what evidence would convince them to change their minds....
...Here are the crux of the deniers' strategy and the horrible implications of it: The deniers want to convince the world that no policy action can be taken so long as there is any disagreement. They somehow pretend that there must be 100 percent consensus one way or the other.
The hypocrisy of this, of course, is that there is no 100 percent consensus that we should continue to burn fossil fuels; yet, by policy we continue to do so in large quantities every day. Would the deniers consent to a moratorium on burning fossil fuels so long as there is a debate about the consequences of burning them? When the shoe is on the other foot, it doesn't fit so comfortably, does it?
I'm sure deniers will be shocked, SHOCKED, to find out that public policy is always made without 100 percent certainty. Were it not so, there would be no public policy at all. Deniers know this, and that's what they want, public policy paralysis.
But there is something else that is disturbing about the deniers' tactics when we look at such tactics through an historical lens.
No doubt there are those who even today might argue that slavery ought to be legal. After all, the Bible, the holiest of books in the Christian world, sanctions slavery. And, the Bible was a frequently used weapon by the slaveholders and their apologists. Perhaps in the interests of honest inquiry we should engage those who argue for the reimposition of slavery.
...Too farfetched? How about those who continue to argue for segregation of the races? Today we call them white supremacists. Shall we give them our ear in order to make sense out of the debate over segregation? Should we withhold our judgment about segregation until all the facts are in? (I am generously presuming that a white supremacist could actually give me facts.)
How about women's suffrage? There are cultures yet today that do not believe women should have a role in governing their own societies. Women, they say, are too immature and weak-minded to participate in such a lofty enterprise. Perhaps we should listen to those advocating the end of women's suffrage (or its prevention where it does not already exist) so we can try to discern whether we should take the vote away from women in our own societies.
As hard as it is to believe, some debates are actually closed. Yes, there may be a few dissenters left, but they are almost exclusively talking among themselves.
1 your definition of denial please
2 Who are you implying are deniers?
You deny that coal and oil burning has any significant effect.
Now deny that.
Can you clarify your accusation.
Define significant.
Effect on what?
This better be good, because what you said looks like a disgraceful bald faced lie.
Tut tut there, no need to become upset. We are merely having a conversation on the interenet. "DISGRACEFUL"
Now I am not a scientist but have had a good on the ground view of it all over my lifetime. On the farm, shearing, model aeroplanes all caused me to follow weather and its cause and effect intently.
And as such an experienced layman (IMHO of course) I have formed the strong view that coal and oil is the biggest culprit in causing the current climate change, which by the way is becoming evident by 100 year events happening every month or so.
Think again old fellow......The Sun has the biggest influence on Climate Change and not coal or oil......You have to get that GRREEN mentality out of your head...Don't believe a word those Greenies are ramming down your throat.
If you don't believe many of us here go to Google and check it out for the yourself....It is the Sun son.
It's not the bl00dy sun, you chose to ignore the post that I made refuting that lie.
For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community).
"The dangerous wave conditions in Bali recently were not a result of a tsunami wave, but the combination of persistent large swell waves generated from a strong mid-latitude cyclone in the southern ocean off Western Australia," Robert explained.
"These large waves just happened to coincide with king tides, which are the highest tides of the year. What this means is that around high tide, the run-up and surge from the breaking waves rushes much further up the beach than it normally would and the backwash down the beach is also strong. These are dangerous conditions, but they are not freak waves or tsunami and conditions will return to normal once the swell decreases and the king tides finish," he said.
yes ignores any post with real facts.
Remember the frogs, older than any other land mammal, pre date dinosaurs 800 million years and being wiped out now in a heart beat. The sun was hotter back then too.
I was onto climate change long before I joined the greens too.
Warragamba Dam wall to be raised to avoid catastrophic flood event - June 17, 2016 [dam currently 97.7% full]
Sean Nicholls - SYDNEY MORNING HERALD STATE POLITICAL EDITOR
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/warragamb...lood-event-20160616-gpkqly.html#ixzz4BnL717x1
Three days before Warragamba Dam could spill due to severe storms, the Baird government has committed to raising its wall to prevent a potential flood disaster in western Sydney, four years after being advised to review the options.
As a looming east coast low raised the possibility that the dam could spill on Sunday, the government said it will commit $58 million towards raising the wall by 14 metres to avoid a catastrophe that could place 43,000 western Sydney residents at risk....
$535m paid to keep desalination plant in state of 'hibernation'- April 12, 2015
Tim Barlass, SMH
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/535m-paid...ibernation-20150410-1miuw6.html#ixzz4BnMo7AAP
Water consumers have paid $534.7 million to keep the Sydney desalination plant in what its operators describe as a state of "hibernation" since it was leased to a private investment company by the Liberal government in 2012.
Greens MP John Kaye, who has previously described the plant at Kurnell as a "white elephant", which has never produced a drop of desalinated water outside testing, has called for it to be permanently mothballed, as he believes there is no likelihood of it being needed in the forseeable future....
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?