BoM climate report - sheesh, it's hot in here...

Umm, the Moses/Red Sea thing is not ‘chronicled’- there’s only the claims of the Bible. And like they say, the main problem with the Bible is that it doesn’t have a bibliography …

There is no evidence it happened. For a start, thanks to an old mistranslation, the Old Testament should refer to the ‘Reed Sea’, usually identified as Lake Timsah, not the Red Sea. Escaping across a reedy swamp doesn’t sound half as impressive, and wouldn’t have given Charlton Heston nearly as much opportunity for wooden acting.

More damaging though, is the total lack of support for any other aspect of the Passover/Exodus story- no mass enslavement, no 40 years wandering in the desert, no triumphal conquest of the homeland etc. For all the enthusiastic archaeology carried out by Bible Societies and others, no hard evidence has been found. What the evidence does point to is a much later assembling of foundation myths, when the minor-but-ambitious polity of Judea wrote itself a glowing past.

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Managing_Risk_med.jpg

Ahh, “Risk Management”.
Another scam invented by people who have never run a business but claim a business must have a risk management plan, a strategic plan etc etc.
The only real “risk management” I have been involved in was when I ran a medium size business. I ensured the fridge was full of cold beer on Friday morning so the Friday evening piss-up could proceed seamlessly.

past tense; so why did this ‘medium sized’ business fail – unmanaged risks? [or are you living the life of riley on the proceeds from the sale of same..?]

Please read what I said. There is nothing in what I said to indicate the business failed.

dungfungus said :

Ahh, “Risk Management”.
Another scam invented by people who have never run a business but claim a business must have a risk management plan, a strategic plan etc etc.
The only real “risk management” I have been involved in was when I ran a medium size business. I ensured the fridge was full of cold beer on Friday morning so the Friday evening piss-up could proceed seamlessly.

Now we can be sure that you are not really a retarded denialist but are just trolling to take the piss.

Risk management is an integral part of most activities, and we all do it every day. Professionally, many of us are involved in serious risk management with serious consequences on a daily basis.

If somebody says, “There’s a chance the green paint in your bedroom is exuding lead-arsenic gas at night, you will investigate,
a. the credibility of the report
and
b. the level of the risk
before deciding whether to ignore or act on the warning.

In the case of cl9imatge change, this has been going on for over 150 years:
– Greenhouse gases are a real thing.
– Human activity is adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere
– it has been established with a fair degree of satisfaction that CO2 (to name but one of the greenhouse gases we are releasing with gay abandon), if we double it, will cause a 3-degree rise in global temperature.
– that 3-degree rise will not be evenly distributed. You’ll get not much rise at the tropics, and more like 8 degrees near the poles.
– the increased heat in the biosphere will alter climate
– the increased heat is now measurable
– the altered climate is now measurable
– polar ice is vanishing quickly
– sea levels are rising much faster than the scientists predicted in the ’80s & ’90s.

Given all these unassailable facts, risk management should entail many varied debates, but one standpoint which is utterly indefensible is, “do nothing”.

Anybody advocating we “do nothing” is either an abject moron, or a devious, calculating psychopath intent on seeing that people and economies suffer.

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Managing_Risk_med.jpg

Ahh, “Risk Management”.
Another scam invented by people who have never run a business but claim a business must have a risk management plan, a strategic plan etc etc.
The only real “risk management” I have been involved in was when I ran a medium size business. I ensured the fridge was full of cold beer on Friday morning so the Friday evening piss-up could proceed seamlessly.

past tense; so why did this ‘medium sized’ business fail – unmanaged risks? [or are you living the life of riley on the proceeds from the sale of same..?]

Nylex_Clock said :

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Managing_Risk_med.jpg

Ahh, “Risk Management”.
Another scam invented by people who have never run a business but claim a business must have a risk management plan, a strategic plan etc etc.
The only real “risk management” I have been involved in was when I ran a medium size business. I ensured the fridge was full of cold beer on Friday morning so the Friday evening piss-up could proceed seamlessly.

Nylex_Clock said :

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Managing_Risk_med.jpg

That’s a good and thorough site. plenty to find there, plenty of myth busting and all the resources, links, the whole lot. Another good one, angled more for the layman and for brevity, and some fun, is “climatebites.org”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Managing_Risk_med.jpg

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

CraigT said :

howeph said :

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread.

Are you dismayed about the fact that 75% of asylum-seekers are still on welfare 4 years after arriving here?

I know I am. What an utter waste of money.

And it is welfare of grand proportions with up to 3 wives and 30 children in one family.

Source?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560

herald sun? that august journal of truth? ha ha ha…

and this government wants to introduce bridging visas for asylum seekers, meaning they would not be entitled to work for up to five years; so what alternative will they have than to resort to welfare? stop defending inhumane stupidity.

oh, and back on topic, reports today from bom and others suggest co2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest for some two million years. explain that one.

Why dont you read the article which reports the following:
“But Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria director Joumanah El Matrah said some men were exploiting Australia…….”.
The matter of introducing bridging visas may become academic because in case you haven’t noticed we have a new government who have effectively “stopped the boats”.

Re the latest fix for the hand-wringing climate alarmists from the BOM and others (the former being unable to even predict reliable day to day weather forecasts), can you send me the records from 2 million years ago and the names of the people who recorded them at that time?

How about you hand me the direct evidence of Moses parting the Red Sea complete with birth certificates and graphs? That was a mere few thousand years ago or so and well within your believed record of human events, if your other Christian inclined posts are to go by (nothing against as such).

Or is it one rule for scientists and another for the “believers” as you like to call warmists?

Or would you prefer to have a dialogue of a biblical nature?

At least the Moses event was chronicled. I don’t believe they had “birth certificates” in those days.
I can’t see the point you are trying to make though unless you are saying the parting of the Red Sea was caused by climate change. You ask for direct evidence of this; well I doubt if there is as at that time there wasn’t access to cameras and such. By the same principle, there is no way BOM, CSIRO and the other climate scaremongers can prove what Co2 levels were 2 million years ago. They want everyone to believe they can because their future funding depends on it.
Also, there is no evidence to support the theory that increased levels of Co2 are alone causing the climate to change.
Climate change is a natural occurrence as far as I am concerned.

No, I wasn’t suggesting the parting of the Red Sea was caused by climate change, not quite my intention, as such. (I suppose technically that event was caused by fleeing refugees…).

It was more like an attempt to discern what differentiates one belief system from another, and what underpins that. Never mind.

You make a good point about “what caused the parting of the Red Sea”. It was, according to the story, it was fleeing refugees getting a leg-up from divine intervention, as you suggest.
Many years ago I saw the re-creation of this event at Universal Studios. The set was used for one of those Hollywood biblical sagas – I think it was Moses played by Charlton Heston. Was impressive.
You might like to remind us of what religious faith the refugees were.

Re the matter of why there are different beliefs about certain issues, we are all reared differently and parents shape our futures until we learn to think for ourselves. In some cultures, parents raise their children to become martys for the cause. This guarantees that there will be no peaceful coexistence for the next 100 years at least.

You went to Universal Studios? Did you do the bus tour and spit-ball the various hollywood residences? Heheh. (Surely someone’s tried it?)

Well, as for the biblical refugees, that answer is well known. They were of precisely the same kind as your Prince of Peace, as were his parents, and a good half of The Book.

I agree, with some caveats perhaps but more or less, that if people (parents or anyone else) bring up martyrs, that does not always bode so well. A better means seems warranted. Interesting thoughts at any rate.

dungfungus said :

It is not necessary to get serious about a problem that doesn’t exist.

The problem *does* exist, as evidenced by the fact that NASA, CSIRO, and every science academy in the world says it does.

It’s just you and your kook-blogs on the “No” corner, dungy.

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Holeeeeee sheeeeeeeeettttt

Dungfungus doesn’t believe in climate change but does believe that a moses parted the Red Sea way back when…

lolololol

I never said I beleieve that Moses parted the Red Sea – I said it was chronicled.

^ this, but you want us to take anything you allege about climate matters seriously? seriously?? just stop posting now. seriously.

It is not necessary to get serious about a problem that doesn’t exist.

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Holeeeeee sheeeeeeeeettttt

Dungfungus doesn’t believe in climate change but does believe that a moses parted the Red Sea way back when…

lolololol

I never said I beleieve that Moses parted the Red Sea – I said it was chronicled.

^ this, but you want us to take anything you allege about climate matters seriously? seriously?? just stop posting now. seriously.

Walker said :

The cat did it said :

No news in this- Patrick Moore and Greenpeace parted ways in 1986. Since then, he’s been a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry (Nuclear Energy Institute), as well as greenwashing Indonesian logging companies. In 2007 he took the same line when he appeared in the film ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. Doesn’t mean that various denialist sites won’t be all over it, despite the fact that his claims re climate science have been debunked several times over. He’s an ecologist by training, not a climate scientist.

As you note, this latest utterance came off the back of President Obama’s recent comments on climate change. Sounds like Patrick may have a case of relevance deprivation syndrome.

Yes, Moore’s been thoroughly pulled apart. The level of recycling in some of the media is remarkable.

I see Dungfungus persists in ignoring the science, focussing instead on the handful of fringe-dwellers whose ignorance he thinks justifies his own.

Is there any danger of him ever actually reading the actual science with a view to developing *informed* opinions?
Sea levels are rising, the rise looks like it is accelerating:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

The earth is warming measurably:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

NASA provides the scientifically-backed conclusions:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

And Dunfungus? Still relying on kook-blogs? Credibility?

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

CraigT said :

howeph said :

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread.

Are you dismayed about the fact that 75% of asylum-seekers are still on welfare 4 years after arriving here?

I know I am. What an utter waste of money.

And it is welfare of grand proportions with up to 3 wives and 30 children in one family.

Source?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560

herald sun? that august journal of truth? ha ha ha…

and this government wants to introduce bridging visas for asylum seekers, meaning they would not be entitled to work for up to five years; so what alternative will they have than to resort to welfare? stop defending inhumane stupidity.

oh, and back on topic, reports today from bom and others suggest co2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest for some two million years. explain that one.

Why dont you read the article which reports the following:
“But Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria director Joumanah El Matrah said some men were exploiting Australia…….”.
The matter of introducing bridging visas may become academic because in case you haven’t noticed we have a new government who have effectively “stopped the boats”.

Re the latest fix for the hand-wringing climate alarmists from the BOM and others (the former being unable to even predict reliable day to day weather forecasts), can you send me the records from 2 million years ago and the names of the people who recorded them at that time?

How about you hand me the direct evidence of Moses parting the Red Sea complete with birth certificates and graphs? That was a mere few thousand years ago or so and well within your believed record of human events, if your other Christian inclined posts are to go by (nothing against as such).

Or is it one rule for scientists and another for the “believers” as you like to call warmists?

Or would you prefer to have a dialogue of a biblical nature?

At least the Moses event was chronicled. I don’t believe they had “birth certificates” in those days.
I can’t see the point you are trying to make though unless you are saying the parting of the Red Sea was caused by climate change. You ask for direct evidence of this; well I doubt if there is as at that time there wasn’t access to cameras and such. By the same principle, there is no way BOM, CSIRO and the other climate scaremongers can prove what Co2 levels were 2 million years ago. They want everyone to believe they can because their future funding depends on it.
Also, there is no evidence to support the theory that increased levels of Co2 are alone causing the climate to change.
Climate change is a natural occurrence as far as I am concerned.

No, I wasn’t suggesting the parting of the Red Sea was caused by climate change, not quite my intention, as such. (I suppose technically that event was caused by fleeing refugees…).

It was more like an attempt to discern what differentiates one belief system from another, and what underpins that. Never mind.

You make a good point about “what caused the parting of the Red Sea”. It was, according to the story, it was fleeing refugees getting a leg-up from divine intervention, as you suggest.
Many years ago I saw the re-creation of this event at Universal Studios. The set was used for one of those Hollywood biblical sagas – I think it was Moses played by Charlton Heston. Was impressive.
You might like to remind us of what religious faith the refugees were.

Re the matter of why there are different beliefs about certain issues, we are all reared differently and parents shape our futures until we learn to think for ourselves. In some cultures, parents raise their children to become martys for the cause. This guarantees that there will be no peaceful coexistence for the next 100 years at least.

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

CraigT said :

howeph said :

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread.

Are you dismayed about the fact that 75% of asylum-seekers are still on welfare 4 years after arriving here?

I know I am. What an utter waste of money.

And it is welfare of grand proportions with up to 3 wives and 30 children in one family.

Source?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560

herald sun? that august journal of truth? ha ha ha…

and this government wants to introduce bridging visas for asylum seekers, meaning they would not be entitled to work for up to five years; so what alternative will they have than to resort to welfare? stop defending inhumane stupidity.

oh, and back on topic, reports today from bom and others suggest co2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest for some two million years. explain that one.

Why dont you read the article which reports the following:
“But Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria director Joumanah El Matrah said some men were exploiting Australia…….”.
The matter of introducing bridging visas may become academic because in case you haven’t noticed we have a new government who have effectively “stopped the boats”.

Re the latest fix for the hand-wringing climate alarmists from the BOM and others (the former being unable to even predict reliable day to day weather forecasts), can you send me the records from 2 million years ago and the names of the people who recorded them at that time?

How about you hand me the direct evidence of Moses parting the Red Sea complete with birth certificates and graphs? That was a mere few thousand years ago or so and well within your believed record of human events, if your other Christian inclined posts are to go by (nothing against as such).

Or is it one rule for scientists and another for the “believers” as you like to call warmists?

Or would you prefer to have a dialogue of a biblical nature?

At least the Moses event was chronicled. I don’t believe they had “birth certificates” in those days.
I can’t see the point you are trying to make though unless you are saying the parting of the Red Sea was caused by climate change. You ask for direct evidence of this; well I doubt if there is as at that time there wasn’t access to cameras and such. By the same principle, there is no way BOM, CSIRO and the other climate scaremongers can prove what Co2 levels were 2 million years ago. They want everyone to believe they can because their future funding depends on it.
Also, there is no evidence to support the theory that increased levels of Co2 are alone causing the climate to change.
Climate change is a natural occurrence as far as I am concerned.

No, I wasn’t suggesting the parting of the Red Sea was caused by climate change, not quite my intention, as such. (I suppose technically that event was caused by fleeing refugees…).

It was more like an attempt to discern what differentiates one belief system from another, and what underpins that. Never mind.

The cat did it said :

No news in this- Patrick Moore and Greenpeace parted ways in 1986. Since then, he’s been a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry (Nuclear Energy Institute), as well as greenwashing Indonesian logging companies. In 2007 he took the same line when he appeared in the film ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. Doesn’t mean that various denialist sites won’t be all over it, despite the fact that his claims re climate science have been debunked several times over. He’s an ecologist by training, not a climate scientist.

As you note, this latest utterance came off the back of President Obama’s recent comments on climate change. Sounds like Patrick may have a case of relevance deprivation syndrome.

Yes, Moore’s been thoroughly pulled apart. The level of recycling in some of the media is remarkable.

The cat did it said :

No news in this- Patrick Moore and Greenpeace parted ways in 1986. Since then, he’s been a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry (Nuclear Energy Institute), as well as greenwashing Indonesian logging companies. In 2007 he took the same line when he appeared in the film ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. Doesn’t mean that various denialist sites won’t be all over it, despite the fact that his claims re climate science have been debunked several times over. He’s an ecologist by training, not a climate scientist.

As you note, this latest utterance came off the back of President Obama’s recent comments on climate change. Sounds like Patrick may have a case of relevance deprivation syndrome.

The news is that Patrick Moore has only just given this information to the Senate.
What’s wrong with being a paid spokesman for the clean nuclear industry – Flannery is paid by the Climate Commission? And Moore’s qualifications as an ecologist are more allied to climate than Tim Flannery being a mammalogist and David Suzuki being a geneticist.
What “climate” qualifications are Al Gore and President Obama in possession of?

No news in this- Patrick Moore and Greenpeace parted ways in 1986. Since then, he’s been a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry (Nuclear Energy Institute), as well as greenwashing Indonesian logging companies. In 2007 he took the same line when he appeared in the film ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. Doesn’t mean that various denialist sites won’t be all over it, despite the fact that his claims re climate science have been debunked several times over. He’s an ecologist by training, not a climate scientist.

As you note, this latest utterance came off the back of President Obama’s recent comments on climate change. Sounds like Patrick may have a case of relevance deprivation syndrome.

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

I know climate and weather are different. The point I was making was that the BOM is not always accurate in weather forecasting so how can we rely on them to draw conclusions from “climate change data”..

That’s why an important part of science is to measure and include any uncertainty in the results.

For example, will extra CO2 in the atmosphere cause *cooling*. Answer: doni’t be ridiculous.

Extra CO2 is warming the planet. How much? Uncertain. Some values are more likely than others. That value can be calculated in various ways, and has been. All those ways of calculating it, when added up, point to about 3 degrees as being the most likely value.

These are the facts, Dung, and vage hand-waving about “uncertainty” doesn’t make this facts go away because you’re not providing any information that the relevant researchers haven’t already considered.

Ever heard that maxim “innocent until proven guilty?”

It appears that one of the climate change crusaders has “rolled over”:

“There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”

“It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a [two degrees Celsius] rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species,” Moore said. “We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.”

“It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age,” he added. “It is ‘extremely likely’ that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”

Indeed, cold weather is more likely to cause death than warm weather. RealClearScience reported that from “1999 to 2010, a total of 4,563 individuals died from heat, but 7,778 individuals died from the cold.” Only in 2006 did heat-related deaths outnumber cold deaths.

In Britain, 24,000 people are projected to die this winter because they cannot afford to pay their energy bills. Roughly 4.5 million British families are facing “fuel poverty.”

“The fact that we had both higher temperatures & an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming,” Moore said.

“When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,” he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.”

Moore, a Canadian, helped found the environmental activist group Greenpeace in the 1970s. He left the group after they began to take on more radical positions. He has since been a critic of radical environmentalism and heads up the group Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, Canada.

Moore’s comments come after President Obama declared global warming a “fact” in the State of the Union. His administration has attempted to argue that the recent U.S. cold snap was influenced by a warmer planet.”

dungfungus said :

I know climate and weather are different. The point I was making was that the BOM is not always accurate in weather forecasting so how can we rely on them to draw conclusions from “climate change data”..

That’s why an important part of science is to measure and include any uncertainty in the results.

For example, will extra CO2 in the atmosphere cause *cooling*. Answer: doni’t be ridiculous.

Extra CO2 is warming the planet. How much? Uncertain. Some values are more likely than others. That value can be calculated in various ways, and has been. All those ways of calculating it, when added up, point to about 3 degrees as being the most likely value.

These are the facts, Dung, and vage hand-waving about “uncertainty” doesn’t make this facts go away because you’re not providing any information that the relevant researchers haven’t already considered.

justin heywood said :

dungfungus said :

Re the latest fix for the hand-wringing climate alarmists from the BOM and others (the former being unable to even predict reliable day to day weather forecasts), can you send me the records from 2 million years ago and the names of the people who recorded them at that time?

Two points on that:

1. ‘Climate’ and ‘weather’ are different things. Predicting the chance of rain at your place tomorrow is a completely different skill than detecting a trend over long periods, and predicting that it will continue.

2. Actually, we DO have records from 2 million years ago and longer. Our own Lake George has even provided data on probable climate well before that.

I know climate and weather are different. The point I was making was that the BOM is not always accurate in weather forecasting so how can we rely on them to draw conclusions from “climate change data”.

I suppose if we look out our kitchen window at the mountains we have visible records of something that was “probably” there 2 million years ago.
“Probability” and “may” are the operative words in climate change theories. I commend you for including “probable” as a qualification in referring to climate data from Lake George. A lot of alarmists don’t bother to – they accept anything that feeds their fears as fact.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Holeeeeee sheeeeeeeeettttt

Dungfungus doesn’t believe in climate change but does believe that a moses parted the Red Sea way back when…

lolololol

I never said I beleieve that Moses parted the Red Sea – I said it was chronicled.

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

CraigT said :

howeph said :

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread.

Are you dismayed about the fact that 75% of asylum-seekers are still on welfare 4 years after arriving here?

I know I am. What an utter waste of money.

And it is welfare of grand proportions with up to 3 wives and 30 children in one family.

Source?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560

herald sun? that august journal of truth? ha ha ha…

and this government wants to introduce bridging visas for asylum seekers, meaning they would not be entitled to work for up to five years; so what alternative will they have than to resort to welfare? stop defending inhumane stupidity.

oh, and back on topic, reports today from bom and others suggest co2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest for some two million years. explain that one.

Why dont you read the article which reports the following:
“But Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria director Joumanah El Matrah said some men were exploiting Australia…….”.
The matter of introducing bridging visas may become academic because in case you haven’t noticed we have a new government who have effectively “stopped the boats”.

Re the latest fix for the hand-wringing climate alarmists from the BOM and others (the former being unable to even predict reliable day to day weather forecasts), can you send me the records from 2 million years ago and the names of the people who recorded them at that time?

How about you hand me the direct evidence of Moses parting the Red Sea complete with birth certificates and graphs? That was a mere few thousand years ago or so and well within your believed record of human events, if your other Christian inclined posts are to go by (nothing against as such).

Or is it one rule for scientists and another for the “believers” as you like to call warmists?

Or would you prefer to have a dialogue of a biblical nature?

At least the Moses event was chronicled. I don’t believe they had “birth certificates” in those days.
I can’t see the point you are trying to make though unless you are saying the parting of the Red Sea was caused by climate change. You ask for direct evidence of this; well I doubt if there is as at that time there wasn’t access to cameras and such. By the same principle, there is no way BOM, CSIRO and the other climate scaremongers can prove what Co2 levels were 2 million years ago. They want everyone to believe they can because their future funding depends on it.
Also, there is no evidence to support the theory that increased levels of Co2 are alone causing the climate to change.
Climate change is a natural occurrence as far as I am concerned.

I hate quoting these annoyingly long quotes – but the 2 dungfungus posts in there are the funniest things I’ve ever read.

It’s amazing that someone that stupid can operate a computer!

dungfungus said :

Re the latest fix for the hand-wringing climate alarmists from the BOM and others (the former being unable to even predict reliable day to day weather forecasts), can you send me the records from 2 million years ago and the names of the people who recorded them at that time?

Two points on that:

1. ‘Climate’ and ‘weather’ are different things. Predicting the chance of rain at your place tomorrow is a completely different skill than detecting a trend over long periods, and predicting that it will continue.

2. Actually, we DO have records from 2 million years ago and longer. Our own Lake George has even provided data on probable climate well before that.

Holeeeeee sheeeeeeeeettttt

Dungfungus doesn’t believe in climate change but does believe that a moses parted the Red Sea way back when…

lolololol

Walker said :

CraigT said :

IrishPete said :

Dr Marshall stopping by briefly to check the patient’s pulse – it’s weak.

Pulse is fairly racing over here:

https://www.facebook.com/events/525492887570419/

I’ve been having a great time sloshing back my wine while I play whack-a-mole with these denialist morons.

Dungfunguns – I respect you (well, we’ll be back to back in the trenches in due course anyway) and I *urge* you to reconsider your unfortunate subscription to the idiotic denialist propaganda. It’s wrong and it’s stupid and it’s just trying to make a sucker out of you. Join us in our hopeless desire to save the world!!!

Sorry to burst your hope, but dungfungus will not answer inconvenient queries.

If you are channeling the word inconvenient from “Inconvenient Truth” by the king of climate carpetbaggers, Al Gore, then you are spot on. The notion that a natural occurrence such as climate change is being caused by humans and Co2 is the greatest scam of all time (so far).

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

CraigT said :

howeph said :

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread.

Are you dismayed about the fact that 75% of asylum-seekers are still on welfare 4 years after arriving here?

I know I am. What an utter waste of money.

And it is welfare of grand proportions with up to 3 wives and 30 children in one family.

Source?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560

herald sun? that august journal of truth? ha ha ha…

and this government wants to introduce bridging visas for asylum seekers, meaning they would not be entitled to work for up to five years; so what alternative will they have than to resort to welfare? stop defending inhumane stupidity.

oh, and back on topic, reports today from bom and others suggest co2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest for some two million years. explain that one.

Why dont you read the article which reports the following:
“But Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria director Joumanah El Matrah said some men were exploiting Australia…….”.
The matter of introducing bridging visas may become academic because in case you haven’t noticed we have a new government who have effectively “stopped the boats”.

Re the latest fix for the hand-wringing climate alarmists from the BOM and others (the former being unable to even predict reliable day to day weather forecasts), can you send me the records from 2 million years ago and the names of the people who recorded them at that time?

How about you hand me the direct evidence of Moses parting the Red Sea complete with birth certificates and graphs? That was a mere few thousand years ago or so and well within your believed record of human events, if your other Christian inclined posts are to go by (nothing against as such).

Or is it one rule for scientists and another for the “believers” as you like to call warmists?

Or would you prefer to have a dialogue of a biblical nature?

At least the Moses event was chronicled. I don’t believe they had “birth certificates” in those days.
I can’t see the point you are trying to make though unless you are saying the parting of the Red Sea was caused by climate change. You ask for direct evidence of this; well I doubt if there is as at that time there wasn’t access to cameras and such. By the same principle, there is no way BOM, CSIRO and the other climate scaremongers can prove what Co2 levels were 2 million years ago. They want everyone to believe they can because their future funding depends on it.
Also, there is no evidence to support the theory that increased levels of Co2 are alone causing the climate to change.
Climate change is a natural occurrence as far as I am concerned.

For the benefit of Dungers and the other non-believers have a read of this which correlates CO2 levels to temperature change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

CraigT said :

howeph said :

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread.

Are you dismayed about the fact that 75% of asylum-seekers are still on welfare 4 years after arriving here?

I know I am. What an utter waste of money.

And it is welfare of grand proportions with up to 3 wives and 30 children in one family.

Source?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560

herald sun? that august journal of truth? ha ha ha…

and this government wants to introduce bridging visas for asylum seekers, meaning they would not be entitled to work for up to five years; so what alternative will they have than to resort to welfare? stop defending inhumane stupidity.

oh, and back on topic, reports today from bom and others suggest co2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest for some two million years. explain that one.

Why dont you read the article which reports the following:
“But Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria director Joumanah El Matrah said some men were exploiting Australia…….”.
The matter of introducing bridging visas may become academic because in case you haven’t noticed we have a new government who have effectively “stopped the boats”.

Re the latest fix for the hand-wringing climate alarmists from the BOM and others (the former being unable to even predict reliable day to day weather forecasts), can you send me the records from 2 million years ago and the names of the people who recorded them at that time?

How about you hand me the direct evidence of Moses parting the Red Sea complete with birth certificates and graphs? That was a mere few thousand years ago or so and well within your believed record of human events, if your other Christian inclined posts are to go by (nothing against as such).

Or is it one rule for scientists and another for the “believers” as you like to call warmists?

Or would you prefer to have a dialogue of a biblical nature?

CraigT said :

IrishPete said :

Dr Marshall stopping by briefly to check the patient’s pulse – it’s weak.

Pulse is fairly racing over here:

https://www.facebook.com/events/525492887570419/

I’ve been having a great time sloshing back my wine while I play whack-a-mole with these denialist morons.

Dungfunguns – I respect you (well, we’ll be back to back in the trenches in due course anyway) and I *urge* you to reconsider your unfortunate subscription to the idiotic denialist propaganda. It’s wrong and it’s stupid and it’s just trying to make a sucker out of you. Join us in our hopeless desire to save the world!!!

Sorry to burst your hope, but dungfungus will not answer inconvenient queries.

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

CraigT said :

howeph said :

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread.

Are you dismayed about the fact that 75% of asylum-seekers are still on welfare 4 years after arriving here?

I know I am. What an utter waste of money.

And it is welfare of grand proportions with up to 3 wives and 30 children in one family.

Source?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560

herald sun? that august journal of truth? ha ha ha…

and this government wants to introduce bridging visas for asylum seekers, meaning they would not be entitled to work for up to five years; so what alternative will they have than to resort to welfare? stop defending inhumane stupidity.

oh, and back on topic, reports today from bom and others suggest co2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest for some two million years. explain that one.

Why dont you read the article which reports the following:
“But Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria director Joumanah El Matrah said some men were exploiting Australia…….”.
The matter of introducing bridging visas may become academic because in case you haven’t noticed we have a new government who have effectively “stopped the boats”.

Re the latest fix for the hand-wringing climate alarmists from the BOM and others (the former being unable to even predict reliable day to day weather forecasts), can you send me the records from 2 million years ago and the names of the people who recorded them at that time?

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

CraigT said :

howeph said :

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread.

Are you dismayed about the fact that 75% of asylum-seekers are still on welfare 4 years after arriving here?

I know I am. What an utter waste of money.

And it is welfare of grand proportions with up to 3 wives and 30 children in one family.

Source?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560

herald sun? that august journal of truth? ha ha ha…

and this government wants to introduce bridging visas for asylum seekers, meaning they would not be entitled to work for up to five years; so what alternative will they have than to resort to welfare? stop defending inhumane stupidity.

oh, and back on topic, reports today from bom and others suggest co2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest for some two million years. explain that one.

CSIRO and BOM make dire climate predictions.

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/bom-csiro-make-dire-climate-predictions/story-e6frfku9-1226844241944

IrishPete said :

Dr Marshall stopping by briefly to check the patient’s pulse – it’s weak.

Pulse is fairly racing over here:

https://www.facebook.com/events/525492887570419/

I’ve been having a great time sloshing back my wine while I play whack-a-mole with these denialist morons.

Dungfunguns – I respect you (well, we’ll be back to back in the trenches in due course anyway) and I *urge* you to reconsider your unfortunate subscription to the idiotic denialist propaganda. It’s wrong and it’s stupid and it’s just trying to make a sucker out of you. Join us in our hopeless desire to save the world!!!

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

CraigT said :

howeph said :

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread.

Are you dismayed about the fact that 75% of asylum-seekers are still on welfare 4 years after arriving here?

I know I am. What an utter waste of money.

And it is welfare of grand proportions with up to 3 wives and 30 children in one family.

Source?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560

dungfungus said :

CraigT said :

howeph said :

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread.

Are you dismayed about the fact that 75% of asylum-seekers are still on welfare 4 years after arriving here?

I know I am. What an utter waste of money.

And it is welfare of grand proportions with up to 3 wives and 30 children in one family.

Source?

CraigT said :

howeph said :

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread.

Are you dismayed about the fact that 75% of asylum-seekers are still on welfare 4 years after arriving here?

I know I am. What an utter waste of money.

Source?

CraigT said :

howeph said :

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread.

Are you dismayed about the fact that 75% of asylum-seekers are still on welfare 4 years after arriving here?

I know I am. What an utter waste of money.

And it is welfare of grand proportions with up to 3 wives and 30 children in one family.

howeph said :

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread. But that is no excuse for being rude to you on this thread. Also I made a mistake, accusing you of being a denier, when your comments here clearly show that you are not.

bundah said :

So if one calculates the difference in percentage terms between 29.88 to 29.90 and 303.03 to 303.05 you will get the same outcome? The goalposts have been moved, unequivocally.

You get different results. Using the temperatures in °Kelvin you get the correct result; while using °Celsius you get an arbitrary result.

There is a difference between a relative scale like the Celsius scale and the Kelvin scale which is an absolute scale.

In the relative Celsius scale a thing’s temperature is measured relative to the arbitrary reference point of the temperature at which water freezes, 0°C. From this reference point it is possible to measure how much things are hotter or colder than it and hence from each other through subtraction.

But the Celsius scale, by its self, does not provide any information about the absolute temperature of things. It is a temperature scale with an arbitrary zero point, so using it to perform percentage change calculations (or any calculation requiring ratios/division or multiplication) gives arbitrary results.

The Kelvin scale’s zero point is not arbitrary. It is the lowest temperature that’s physically possible in the Universe. There are no negative temperatures in the Kelvin scale because anything lower than 0°K is impossible. That is why 0°K is called absolute zero. Temperatures measured in °K gives an absolute value of temperature allowing calculations requiring ratios/division and multiplication like percentage change calculations.

For a better description please read these “physics in plain english” links:

http://www.plainenglish.info/Physics/Thermodynamics/The+Kelvin+Temperature+Scale

and

http://www.plainenglish.info/Physics/Thermodynamics/What+is+Temperature%3F

dungfungus said :

I don’t know where you were taught basic maths but if the increase is 0.02 of a degree, the equation to determine the percentage increase to two decimal places is: 0.02 over 29.88 x 100 over 1 = 0.07%.

The problem is not with the arithmetic – it’s with your understanding.

You have shown that you don’t understand what temperature is. Without this basic understanding you are incapable of making a simple calculation of percentage temperature change. It demonstrates that you crap on about stuff that you don’t understand and ridicule those who do.

dungfungus said :

Forget all this “Kelvin” crap; you have confused everyone enough already.

That’s the difference between me and you. If you find something confusing or difficult or contrary to your understanding you “forget” about. You dismiss it. You deny it.

I don’t. I find such things interesting. An opportunity to learn something new. Maybe even a chance to correct something that I mistakenly thought I knew. That is how a true sceptical and critical thinker thinks.

I haven’t “denied” anything. I was making a point that there is enough confusion already without you seizing the chance to impose your claim to be an elitist thinker.
It must be difficult for you to even stoop to my level to remind me how superior you are.

howeph said :

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread.

Are you dismayed about the fact that 75% of asylum-seekers are still on welfare 4 years after arriving here?

I know I am. What an utter waste of money.

IrishPete said :

Dr Marshall stopping by briefly to check the patient’s pulse – it’s weak.

When people engaging in argument about science don’t even know about the concept of Absolute Zero, it makes me wonder if there should be a knowledge test before you are allowed to post stuff on the internet.

IP

But that would leave nobody to post videos of cats on Youtube. What a dull and boring internet THAT would be!

The percentage change debate is entirely academic and far too much time has been spent on this already. The real issue is anthropogenic climate change for which their is consensus by 97% of climate scientists that there is a 95% probability that it is real and going to have a substantial impact on life as we know it if it continues unabated.

Humans are far more committed to maintaining economic prosperity and increasing personal wealth than making the immediate and necessary changes that are required to reduce the level of shit pumped into the atmosphere.

So unless necessary sacrifices are made to virtually eliminate cheap and nasty coal from the equation we really are going to suffer the consequences in the centuries ahead, methinks.

Dr Marshall stopping by briefly to check the patient’s pulse – it’s weak.

When people engaging in argument about science don’t even know about the concept of Absolute Zero, it makes me wonder if there should be a knowledge test before you are allowed to post stuff on the internet.

IP

Hi Bundah,

First I want to apologise. I was dismayed and frustrated by the comments about asylum seekers and refugees in another thread. But that is no excuse for being rude to you on this thread. Also I made a mistake, accusing you of being a denier, when your comments here clearly show that you are not.

bundah said :

So if one calculates the difference in percentage terms between 29.88 to 29.90 and 303.03 to 303.05 you will get the same outcome? The goalposts have been moved, unequivocally.

You get different results. Using the temperatures in °Kelvin you get the correct result; while using °Celsius you get an arbitrary result.

There is a difference between a relative scale like the Celsius scale and the Kelvin scale which is an absolute scale.

In the relative Celsius scale a thing’s temperature is measured relative to the arbitrary reference point of the temperature at which water freezes, 0°C. From this reference point it is possible to measure how much things are hotter or colder than it and hence from each other through subtraction.

But the Celsius scale, by its self, does not provide any information about the absolute temperature of things. It is a temperature scale with an arbitrary zero point, so using it to perform percentage change calculations (or any calculation requiring ratios/division or multiplication) gives arbitrary results.

The Kelvin scale’s zero point is not arbitrary. It is the lowest temperature that’s physically possible in the Universe. There are no negative temperatures in the Kelvin scale because anything lower than 0°K is impossible. That is why 0°K is called absolute zero. Temperatures measured in °K gives an absolute value of temperature allowing calculations requiring ratios/division and multiplication like percentage change calculations.

For a better description please read these “physics in plain english” links:

http://www.plainenglish.info/Physics/Thermodynamics/The+Kelvin+Temperature+Scale

and

http://www.plainenglish.info/Physics/Thermodynamics/What+is+Temperature%3F

dungfungus said :

I don’t know where you were taught basic maths but if the increase is 0.02 of a degree, the equation to determine the percentage increase to two decimal places is: 0.02 over 29.88 x 100 over 1 = 0.07%.

The problem is not with the arithmetic – it’s with your understanding.

You have shown that you don’t understand what temperature is. Without this basic understanding you are incapable of making a simple calculation of percentage temperature change. It demonstrates that you crap on about stuff that you don’t understand and ridicule those who do.

dungfungus said :

Forget all this “Kelvin” crap; you have confused everyone enough already.

That’s the difference between me and you. If you find something confusing or difficult or contrary to your understanding you “forget” about. You dismiss it. You deny it.

I don’t. I find such things interesting. An opportunity to learn something new. Maybe even a chance to correct something that I mistakenly thought I knew. That is how a true sceptical and critical thinker thinks.

dungfungus said :

howeph said :

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

The difference may be 0.02 of a degree – the increase is 0.001% which is what I said.

Incorrect the percentage difference is actually 0.0669%.

Bundah is correct (although I’m not sure about the nine on the end).

The increase is 29.9C – 29.88C = 0.02C

But to calculate the percentage change you must convert from the Celsius scale to an absolute temperature scale such as degrees Kelvin.

29.9C = 303.05K and
29.88C = 303.03K

The percentage change is (303.05 – 303.03) / 303.03 * 100 = 0.0066

Dungfungus, maybe you should put a little bit more trust in the scientists who know what they are doing? Scientists who know how to do simple things like calculating a percentage change of temperature.

I don’t know where you were taught basic maths but if the increase is 0.02 of a degree, the equation to determine the percentage increase to two decimal places is: 0.02 over 29.88 x 100 over 1 = 0.07%.
Forget all this “Kelvin” crap; you have confused everyone enough already.

If you want to learn why Kelvin and so on, better off looking it up. (Or try this: set your freezer to exactly zero. You know there’s still heat in it because you could, if you wanted, go even colder. But you’re at zero…. Now double the heat…. how? Yes it never occurred to me to try that either…)

But this is all pointless until we know what this figure is we’re talking about in the first place…
0.0001% – are we sure we know what this was even meant to represent? Also where’s it from?

Antagonist said :

bundah said :

In case you hadn’t noticed the vast majority of the world uses Celsius to record climate temperatures not Kelvin. So my calculations are therefore accurate. Moving the goalposts to Kelvin changes the proportion between the numbers so one will get a different result.

Most climate scientists work in both Kelvin *AND* Celcius. Also note that the divisions on the Celcius and kelvin scales are equal. That is, an increase of 1°C equates to an increase of 1 kelvin. The goalposts have not moved anywhere. Your perception of the goalposts has changed.

howeph said :

So by your reckoning 4°C is twice as hot as 2°C? If you think that then you are wrong.

^^^ This. If you double the temperature of a gas at 0°C (273 K), its new temperature is 273°C (546 K). Thermodynamics 101.

So if one calculates the difference in percentage terms between 29.88 to 29.90 and 303.03 to 303.05 you will get the same outcome? The goalposts have been moved, unequivocally.

bundah said :

In case you hadn’t noticed the vast majority of the world uses Celsius to record climate temperatures not Kelvin. So my calculations are therefore accurate. Moving the goalposts to Kelvin changes the proportion between the numbers so one will get a different result.

Most climate scientists work in both Kelvin *AND* Celcius. Also note that the divisions on the Celcius and kelvin scales are equal. That is, an increase of 1°C equates to an increase of 1 kelvin. The goalposts have not moved anywhere. Your perception of the goalposts has changed.

howeph said :

So by your reckoning 4°C is twice as hot as 2°C? If you think that then you are wrong.

^^^ This. If you double the temperature of a gas at 0°C (273 K), its new temperature is 273°C (546 K). Thermodynamics 101.

howeph said :

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

The difference may be 0.02 of a degree – the increase is 0.001% which is what I said.

Incorrect the percentage difference is actually 0.0669%.

Bundah is correct (although I’m not sure about the nine on the end).

The increase is 29.9C – 29.88C = 0.02C

But to calculate the percentage change you must convert from the Celsius scale to an absolute temperature scale such as degrees Kelvin.

29.9C = 303.05K and
29.88C = 303.03K

The percentage change is (303.05 – 303.03) / 303.03 * 100 = 0.0066

Dungfungus, maybe you should put a little bit more trust in the scientists who know what they are doing? Scientists who know how to do simple things like calculating a percentage change of temperature.

I don’t know where you were taught basic maths but if the increase is 0.02 of a degree, the equation to determine the percentage increase to two decimal places is: 0.02 over 29.88 x 100 over 1 = 0.07%.
Forget all this “Kelvin” crap; you have confused everyone enough already.

Bundah: “Bundah wrooong? surely you jest…. In case you hadn’t noticed the vast majority of the world uses Celsius to record climate temperatures not Kelvin. So my calculations are therefore accurate. Moving the goalposts to Kelvin changes the proportion between the numbers so one will get a different result.”

So by your reckoning 4°C is twice as hot as 2°C? If you think that then you are wrong.

Perhaps you could tell me, in your wisdom, how many times 4°C is hotter than -2°C?

F.F.S. You deniers revel in your ignorance and illiteracy don’t you?

“In a wilderness of common sense, science stands a lonely pinnacle.” – Unkonwn

bundah said :

astrojax said :

so, on the last day of summer, last day of the month, do i get my mully? or only 0.0669% of it?

what has this thread taught us? dungfungus can’t do science and nylex clock is manic. anything else?

Nah you get an honourable mention for getting the ball rolling but the Mully definitely goes to dungers for aligning himself with the illuminati such as Bolt, Monckton and the other deniers by choosing to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence.

aww, but can i have 0.0066% of it?? 🙂

and yes, dungers, as dad’s army was wont to exclaim, we’re doomed, doomed!

howeph said :

howeph said :

bundah said :

Incorrect the percentage difference is actually 0.0669%.

Bundah is correct (although I’m not sure about the nine on the end).

The increase is 29.9C – 29.88C = 0.02C

But to calculate the percentage change you must convert from the Celsius scale to an absolute temperature scale such as degrees Kelvin.

29.9C = 303.05K and
29.88C = 303.03K

The percentage change is (303.05 – 303.03) / 303.03 * 100 = 0.0066

Correction: I just noticed that Bundah is wrong too. Out by a factor of ten.

Bundah wrooong? surely you jest…. In case you hadn’t noticed the vast majority of the world uses Celsius to record climate temperatures not Kelvin. So my calculations are therefore accurate. Moving the goalposts to Kelvin changes the proportion between the numbers so one will get a different result.

howeph said :

howeph said :

bundah said :

Incorrect the percentage difference is actually 0.0669%.

Bundah is correct (although I’m not sure about the nine on the end).

The increase is 29.9C – 29.88C = 0.02C

But to calculate the percentage change you must convert from the Celsius scale to an absolute temperature scale such as degrees Kelvin.

29.9C = 303.05K and
29.88C = 303.03K

The percentage change is (303.05 – 303.03) / 303.03 * 100 = 0.0066

Correction: I just noticed that Bundah is wrong too. Out by a factor of ten.

What is happening now is just the same with all the “climate” scientists namely, none of them can agree. This is hilarious.

astrojax said :

so, on the last day of summer, last day of the month, do i get my mully? or only 0.0669% of it?

what has this thread taught us? dungfungus can’t do science and nylex clock is manic. anything else?

I believe you would’ve won the final Mully, if there was anyone left to award it.

The other thread competing for prestigious Mully honour taught me there are probably less than ten actual people left posting here, some using several pseudonyms. Little wonder the site is being wound up. It was great while it lasted, and 14 years is nothing to sneeze at.

BTW is your shift key broken? 🙂

astrojax said :

so, on the last day of summer, last day of the month, do i get my mully? or only 0.0669% of it?

what has this thread taught us? dungfungus can’t do science and nylex clock is manic. anything else?

Nah you get an honourable mention for getting the ball rolling but the Mully definitely goes to dungers for aligning himself with the illuminati such as Bolt, Monckton and the other deniers by choosing to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence.

howeph said :

bundah said :

Incorrect the percentage difference is actually 0.0669%.

Bundah is correct (although I’m not sure about the nine on the end).

The increase is 29.9C – 29.88C = 0.02C

But to calculate the percentage change you must convert from the Celsius scale to an absolute temperature scale such as degrees Kelvin.

29.9C = 303.05K and
29.88C = 303.03K

The percentage change is (303.05 – 303.03) / 303.03 * 100 = 0.0066

Correction: I just noticed that Bundah is wrong too. Out by a factor of ten.

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

Well it’s official with just a day to go Canberra has sweltered through its hottest summer on record just surpassing the 2006 record of 29.88.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/weather/hottest-summer-on-record-for-the-act-20140227-33k9u.html

Wow! An increase of 0.001%.
We are surely doomed.

You really have no idea how science works, do you?

It’s not that dung doesn’t know how science works he simply doesn’t accept the fact that 97% of climate scientists have said that humans are causing global warming and this is likely to have a significant impact on humanity in the future.

Oh and it’s not 0.001 of a degree it’s 0.02 of a degree, actually.

The difference may be 0.02 of a degree – the increase is 0.001% which is what I said.

Incorrect the percentage difference is actually 0.0669%.

Whatever you say. So, are we still doomed?

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

Well it’s official with just a day to go Canberra has sweltered through its hottest summer on record just surpassing the 2006 record of 29.88.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/weather/hottest-summer-on-record-for-the-act-20140227-33k9u.html

Wow! An increase of 0.001%.
We are surely doomed.

You really have no idea how science works, do you?

It’s not that dung doesn’t know how science works he simply doesn’t accept the fact that 97% of climate scientists have said that humans are causing global warming and this is likely to have a significant impact on humanity in the future.

Oh and it’s not 0.001 of a degree it’s 0.02 of a degree, actually.

The difference may be 0.02 of a degree – the increase is 0.001% which is what I said.

Incorrect the percentage difference is actually 0.0669%.

so, on the last day of summer, last day of the month, do i get my mully? or only 0.0669% of it?

what has this thread taught us? dungfungus can’t do science and nylex clock is manic. anything else?

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

The difference may be 0.02 of a degree – the increase is 0.001% which is what I said.

Incorrect the percentage difference is actually 0.0669%.

Bundah is correct (although I’m not sure about the nine on the end).

The increase is 29.9C – 29.88C = 0.02C

But to calculate the percentage change you must convert from the Celsius scale to an absolute temperature scale such as degrees Kelvin.

29.9C = 303.05K and
29.88C = 303.03K

The percentage change is (303.05 – 303.03) / 303.03 * 100 = 0.0066

Dungfungus, maybe you should put a little bit more trust in the scientists who know what they are doing? Scientists who know how to do simple things like calculating a percentage change of temperature.

lets look at what flip flop flannery the climate prophet has said

It will never rain again and the water will not make it to rivers and Sydney and Brisbane dams will never fill again. Adelaide and Brisbane will run out of water by 2007

The dams overflowed 2 years later, Queensland was water logged,
some rain records were be broken as far back as 1886

2003 Global warming means less ice in Antarctica
2013 Global warming means more ice in Antarctica

Scientists Trapped In Record Antarctic Sea Ice Announce That It Is Disappearing

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

Well it’s official with just a day to go Canberra has sweltered through its hottest summer on record just surpassing the 2006 record of 29.88.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/weather/hottest-summer-on-record-for-the-act-20140227-33k9u.html

Wow! An increase of 0.001%.
We are surely doomed.

You really have no idea how science works, do you?

It’s not that dung doesn’t know how science works he simply doesn’t accept the fact that 97% of climate scientists have said that humans are causing global warming and this is likely to have a significant impact on humanity in the future.

Oh and it’s not 0.001 of a degree it’s 0.02 of a degree, actually.

The difference may be 0.02 of a degree – the increase is 0.001% which is what I said.

Incorrect the percentage difference is actually 0.0669%.

bundah said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

Well it’s official with just a day to go Canberra has sweltered through its hottest summer on record just surpassing the 2006 record of 29.88.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/weather/hottest-summer-on-record-for-the-act-20140227-33k9u.html

Wow! An increase of 0.001%.
We are surely doomed.

You really have no idea how science works, do you?

It’s not that dung doesn’t know how science works he simply doesn’t accept the fact that 97% of climate scientists have said that humans are causing global warming and this is likely to have a significant impact on humanity in the future.

Oh and it’s not 0.001 of a degree it’s 0.02 of a degree, actually.

The difference may be 0.02 of a degree – the increase is 0.001% which is what I said.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

Well it’s official with just a day to go Canberra has sweltered through its hottest summer on record just surpassing the 2006 record of 29.88.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/weather/hottest-summer-on-record-for-the-act-20140227-33k9u.html

Wow! An increase of 0.001%.
We are surely doomed.

You really have no idea how science works, do you?

It’s not that dung doesn’t know how science works he simply doesn’t accept the fact that 97% of climate scientists have said that humans are causing global warming and this is likely to have a significant impact on humanity in the future.

Oh and it’s not 0.001 of a degree it’s 0.02 of a degree, actually.

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

Well it’s official with just a day to go Canberra has sweltered through its hottest summer on record just surpassing the 2006 record of 29.88.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/weather/hottest-summer-on-record-for-the-act-20140227-33k9u.html

Wow! An increase of 0.001%.
We are surely doomed.

I see you are a believer in the magical protective qualities of very small numbers.

Presumably this magic would also protect you from any ill-effects, should we increase the proportion of Polonium in your bodyweight by 0.001%?

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

Well it’s official with just a day to go Canberra has sweltered through its hottest summer on record just surpassing the 2006 record of 29.88.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/weather/hottest-summer-on-record-for-the-act-20140227-33k9u.html

Wow! An increase of 0.001%.
We are surely doomed.

You really have no idea how science works, do you?

dungfungus said :

MonarchRepublic said :

To add some fuel to the fire –
Tim Flannery spoke last week at the 2014 IAE Krebs lecture at UC. A recording can be found at:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/44183505

(Lecture starts at about 14 minute mark in the recording – accompanying slides did not seem to be captured though)

This will be a good chance to try out the new bullshit detector I just bought. Thanks for the heads up.

Before you switch it on, answer the questions I asked you so far.

MonarchRepublic said :

To add some fuel to the fire –
Tim Flannery spoke last week at the 2014 IAE Krebs lecture at UC. A recording can be found at:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/44183505

(Lecture starts at about 14 minute mark in the recording – accompanying slides did not seem to be captured though)

This will be a good chance to try out the new bullshit detector I just bought. Thanks for the heads up.

bundah said :

Well it’s official with just a day to go Canberra has sweltered through its hottest summer on record just surpassing the 2006 record of 29.88.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/weather/hottest-summer-on-record-for-the-act-20140227-33k9u.html

Wow! An increase of 0.001%.
We are surely doomed.

Well it’s official with just a day to go Canberra has sweltered through its hottest summer on record just surpassing the 2006 record of 29.88.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/weather/hottest-summer-on-record-for-the-act-20140227-33k9u.html

To add some fuel to the fire –
Tim Flannery spoke last week at the 2014 IAE Krebs lecture at UC. A recording can be found at:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/44183505

(Lecture starts at about 14 minute mark in the recording – accompanying slides did not seem to be captured though)

Pork Hunt said :

bundah said :

Nylex_Clock said :

You reckon engaging with denialists decreases the IQ?

You’re probably right.

It’s about as useful as bashing one’s head against a brick wall….

But it feels good when you stop…

feels better when they stop… 🙂

bundah said :

Nylex_Clock said :

You reckon engaging with denialists decreases the IQ?

You’re probably right.

It’s about as useful as bashing one’s head against a brick wall….

But it feels good when you stop…

Nylex_Clock said :

You reckon engaging with denialists decreases the IQ?

You’re probably right.

It’s about as useful as bashing one’s head against a brick wall….

IrishPete said :

switch said :

bundah said :

Pork Hunt said :

For someone who has been on RiotACT for two weeks, you sure have made an impact Nylex_Clock. Probably cause a 1 deg C rise in global temperature due to your exuberant posting…

Indeed although I suspect that he’s not even raised a sweat. At this rate he’ll knock of IP as top rioter in no time…

Do people with postarrhea do anything else? Sleep, eat, talk to their partners? Bathe? I can’t see how they’d have the time to be away from the keyboard.

Ppostarrhea – I post from the toilet. Can anyone tell me the best way to clean the tablet touchscreen?

I see NylexClock’s Top Rioters score is decreasing, even as s/he adds more posts. There really is something wrong with that score, unless (as I said on the “Goodbye RiotACT and thanks for ll the fish” thread) it’s actually an IQ scoring algorithm.

IP

You reckon engaging with denialists decreases the IQ?

You’re probably right.

switch said :

bundah said :

Pork Hunt said :

For someone who has been on RiotACT for two weeks, you sure have made an impact Nylex_Clock. Probably cause a 1 deg C rise in global temperature due to your exuberant posting…

Indeed although I suspect that he’s not even raised a sweat. At this rate he’ll knock of IP as top rioter in no time…

Do people with postarrhea do anything else? Sleep, eat, talk to their partners? Bathe? I can’t see how they’d have the time to be away from the keyboard.

Ppostarrhea – I post from the toilet. Can anyone tell me the best way to clean the tablet touchscreen?

I see NylexClock’s Top Rioters score is decreasing, even as s/he adds more posts. There really is something wrong with that score, unless (as I said on the “Goodbye RiotACT and thanks for ll the fish” thread) it’s actually an IQ scoring algorithm.

IP

Moving on through MERC600 & Dungfingers’ incoherent list of “scientists”, we come to Ian Plimer.

Wikipedia gives you a taste for the factual basis for Plimer’s claims:
“Plimer has long argued that volcanic eruptions release more carbon dioxide (CO2) than human activity; in particular that submarine volcanoes emit huge amounts of CO2 and that the influence of the gases from these volcanoes on the Earth’s climate is drastically underrepresented in climate models. The United States Geological Survey has calculated that human emissions of CO2 are about 130 times larger than volcanic emissions, including submarine emissions. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that Plimer’s claim “has no factual basis.” This was confirmed in a 2011 survey published in the Eos journal of the American Geophysical Union, which found that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are 135 times larger than those from all volcanoes on Earth.”

If you want to see Plimer challenged on his fact-free assertions, this video is hugely entertaining:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsygjXunTs

Unable to publish his misbegotten opinions academically, he instead publishes bizarre books full of complete nonsense. Here is a brief review which gives you a taste for how bad they are:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/books/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8nf-1225710387147

Here is a 64-page document that details most of the many errors in one of Plimer’s books:
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
As you can see, Plimer is a massively unreliable source.

But worse, he is in fact beyond unreliable. Here is an analysis of one episode of Plimer’s untruth-telling:
http://www.readfearn.com/2011/12/climate-science-denier-ian-plimer-telling-porkies-on-primetime-telly/

So why would you get your advice from somebody who,
– holds opinions conitradicted by fact
– repeats over and over assertions that are each time shown to be wrong
– stands before an audience and tells bald-faced untruths
???

The necessary combination of factors for MERC600 and Dungfingers to swallow Plimer’s crud would include:
– failure of critical analysis
– failure of scepticism
– failure of rational thought
– confirmation bias.

But it would take one more thing to be a denialist: active and studied avoidance of the truth.

Because if they were sceptical, if they were open to learning new things as we are, they would post back on this thread saying, “I didn’t realise my views on climate change were based on lies, fabricated graphs and crank beliefs emitted by a tiny minority of scientists. I understand that I’ve been parroting stuff I now see is wrong. I understand now what a scientific consensus is and why it is important.”

switch said :

bundah said :

Pork Hunt said :

For someone who has been on RiotACT for two weeks, you sure have made an impact Nylex_Clock. Probably cause a 1 deg C rise in global temperature due to your exuberant posting…

Indeed although I suspect that he’s not even raised a sweat. At this rate he’ll knock of IP as top rioter in no time…

Do people with postarrhea do anything else? Sleep, eat, talk to their partners? Bathe? I can’t see how they’d have the time to be away from the keyboard.

It’s an experiment to see if humans can be surreptitiously used to model a dynamic interrelated complex system of multiple variables rhythms feedback loops and trigger points which all together logarithmically spiral into unbridled mayhem!

dungfungus said :

Walker said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Geez, another one that want’s me to send in evidence of my Canberra Times Direct invoice.

Fabricated evidence won’t convince me.

I doubt if two black eyes would either.

Meh, tell that to the mirror.

Postalgeek, there seems little point asking dungfungus for his credentials.

It seems reasonable enough and perhaps not much influence overall on the topic that he does indeed read this and subscribe to that and, admittedly and interestingly, does have some eco-credentials in other areas (see earlier posts of his). And seems to run a heck of a tight household. That’s admirable.

Having said that, dungfungus is acting like a jerk by now, and I think his sociopathic throwing black eyes (even by riotact standards which are pretty messy fair enough) is really piss poor and churlish at best.

Dungfungus, come on, enough with the conspiracy theories, give us some substance. Give us some rationale dammit. Or am I just barking up the wrong tree… maybe.

As I put forward earlier:
To convince me that there is a problem with man made “carbon pollution” interferring with the climate, for a start, I would have to see a weather event that had never happened before, a bushfire burn where it has never burned before and some of the wild predictions that people like Flannery have made happen (like dramatic rises in sea levels). The timing is important as well (within my lifetime which won’t be much longer).
Oh, and when we have another drought (like the one that is breaking now) that we have never had before. Better not forget floods either.

So, where is the conspiracy theory in that substantial response?
Yes you are barking up the wrong tree – barking mad would be more applicable.

You tell me “put forward earlier” but that was to another user. No matter.

Briefly, when I meant conspiracies etc, I meant one of your longer posts earlier, a who’s-who of very strange stuff, UN this and that, and expect people would take that in as a replacement for openly published scientific works.

Now, as to your proposition of a few things you think would have you understand climate science:

I am curious to know why you choose this approach. Can you show me how these questions link your thinking to AGW? Emphasis on the A?

Not well chosen questions. Gives some insight into what makes you tick. Not sure why someone would go about it this way. (Not sure why I should expect reason, there’s that too I guess).

But you put your money on the table, so just to see where it takes us, for your “what it would take” quest:

1. Google “unprecedented weather” and do a lot of scrolling
2. Google “unprecedented forest fire” or “melting permafrost” and more scrolling. Includes Siberian forests ever less icy, thawing out, more fire prone. Puzzle over why we had to extent fire warning scale to “catastrophic” and if that’s not enough, “code red.”
3. 1 and 2 has been warned about.
4. Refer to other posts here on sea level already answered.

A bit more on oceans…

Straight up, no dramatic sea level rise in your lifetime. I’m not going to re-arrange climate science to satisfy someone’s arbitrary whim. No bones: no dramatic average sea level rise in your lifetime. But it is rising, and what’s more, the meltwater source is accounted for.

I see little point anyone being 100% convinced about AGW via faulty logic and a couple of questions even if their own. Otherwise we could just train parrots and call it an educated democracy. So even if you were now convicted, I wouldn’t be content with the method. Won’t do.

Question: Could tell me who it is exactly that’s been screaming “waterworld is coming and it’s in your lifetime!” or similar biblical proportion you talk about. Who told you this?

Here’s a little re-rout from earlier for you as well (nobody else ran with it):
What do you make of ocean acidification? Is it a problem?

ps. a couple places you mention illness… so good luck with the tests… nobody likes to be unwell. So get better

bundah said :

Pork Hunt said :

For someone who has been on RiotACT for two weeks, you sure have made an impact Nylex_Clock. Probably cause a 1 deg C rise in global temperature due to your exuberant posting…

Indeed although I suspect that he’s not even raised a sweat. At this rate he’ll knock of IP as top rioter in no time…

Do people with postarrhea do anything else? Sleep, eat, talk to their partners? Bathe? I can’t see how they’d have the time to be away from the keyboard.

bundah said :

Pork Hunt said :

For someone who has been on RiotACT for two weeks, you sure have made an impact Nylex_Clock. Probably cause a 1 deg C rise in global temperature due to your exuberant posting…

Indeed although I suspect that he’s not even raised a sweat. At this rate he’ll knock of IP as top rioter in no time…

Does anyone know how that score is calculated? I don’t trust it. Some of you post across lots of threads, I generally stick to a small number. And dungfungus and NylexClock on this thread surely have already exceeded the number of posts that Top Rioter shows currently.

NylexClock may well be someone who has changed their profile name, or has more than one. Look for a profile with a similar political viewpoint that is currently not as active as usual.

IP

Pork Hunt said :

For someone who has been on RiotACT for two weeks, you sure have made an impact Nylex_Clock. Probably cause a 1 deg C rise in global temperature due to your exuberant posting…

Indeed although I suspect that he’s not even raised a sweat. At this rate he’ll knock of IP as top rioter in no time…

For someone who has been on RiotACT for two weeks, you sure have made an impact Nylex_Clock. Probably cause a 1 deg C rise in global temperature due to your exuberant posting…

Who else does MERC600 have on his list?

Fred Singer!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

“Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking”

Singer says, “Climate deniers are giving us skeptics a bad name.”

Denier or fake sceptic, in any case, he’s full of it, a catalog of his rubbish is listed here:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm

More on Svensmark:

Looks like Svensmark’s years and years of banging on about cosmic rays wasn’t time well-spent. It seems his idea is now pretty much officially a failed hypothesis:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/nov/12/global-warming-humans-not-cosmic-rays

Henrik Svensmark:

Has been banging on about cosmic rays for years. He reckons cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Most people believe this is credible, just hasn’t really been proven yet. Probably not the major contributor to cloud formation though. Not many people are interested.

Clouds cool the earth.
Solar activity correlates negatively with cosmic rays – that is to say, if the Sun is active, it suppresses cosmic rays and vice versa.

The problem for Svensmark is that solar activity has about level or decreasing over the last few decades, meaning more cosmic rays, meaning (according to him) more clouds, meaning cooling.
In actualy fact, every decade in the last 50 years has been warmer than its preceding decade.

So – and this is the key point here – if cosmic rays *do* cause any measurable cooling, that means the current steep warming trend would be even steeper with the effects of cosmic rays taken out.
Ergo, Svensmark’s pet theory if proven correct, would cause climate science to have to revise the projected effects of CO2 UPWARDS.
Global warming would be WORSE than we currently believe.

So, not sure why MERC600 thinks this name on his list assists him? Maybe MERC600 hasn’t actually thought this one through?

(If my explanation sounds like gibberish, try this one here, I’m sure it’s better:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

Who else have you got in there?

Garth Paltridge:

Says,
“…the numerical models tell a coherent story about the possible change of climate in only one respect – namely that the global surface temperature is likely to go up”

“… there will indeed be some degree of global warming because of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

So, not sure why you imagine he is of any use to your denialism…

On the other hand, he wrote a book and got arch-climate-clown Christopher Monckton to write the preface, including such choice morsels as calling global warming a “bizarre intellectual aberration” and a “new religion”, so clearly Paltridge, as he embraces old age, has lost his marbles and thrown in his lot with the loons.

I see MERC600 is happy to see people have “impressive titles” but isn’t in the slightest bit sceptical about whether their opinions are in any way valid.

I will therefore now turn to another name on his list of denialists posing as experts in this area, and this one’s a doozy:

Nils-Axel Mörner:

“was elected “Deceiver of the year” by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for “organizing university courses about dowsing…”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner

DOWSING. FFS.

But anyway, what about his actual “science”?

Here is without doubt the funniest thing you will ever see. Morner wants to pretend sea level rise isn’t happening. Of course the observations, the real-world data show that it undoubtedly is. What does he do?
Please cast your eye over the following document, specifically Figure5.:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
Do you see what he did there?
He just tilted the graph clockwise around 0,0 until the rising sea level trend became a horizontal line.
Tadaaah!
No sea level rise!!
Comedy GOLD.

These are the clowns MERC600 and Dungfingers rely on to back up their pitiful denialist beliefs!!!!

More on sea level rise and the clowns that deny it here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth-16-bizarro-world-sea-level.html

MERC600 said :

Nylex_Clock said :

MERC600 said :

Dungfungus must need a rest. He’s been at it for 3-4 days. So to help him escape for a coldy , have a go at this lot. Am sure Dungfungus will , after a few ales, and a meat tray, will be all refreshed.

Its from that wikipedia thing, which has its problems. Have picked up a couple on their Johnny Cash page for instance.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections.

SNIP
long list of cut’n’paste consisting of discredited creationists, dowsers, credential-inflators, and people who have published denialist papers quickly demonstrated to have been rubbish.

If you have to rely on the likes of Spencer and Morner to buttress your opinion, you surely must realise your position is desperate?

Good grief ,, your saying the lot of them are but charlatans… Please let wiki know about this, and then post up your findings to us on the whole 150 of em ….. ( I thought they looked OK, some very impressive titles. Normally on a long list that nobody reads, someone slips in Bugs Bunny, but not on this list , as you found out )

That’s the thing – it takes you about 10 seconds to cut and paste your list and say, “see, scientists think climate change is crap”.

On the other hand, for those of us who are genuine sceptics it takes a long time to actually look into who these people are, to discover they have no credibilit and to understand why, but more importantly, to see that there is absolutely no coherent argument they all subscribe to: they all disagree with each other, and you’ve entrirely failed to propose any alternative explanation for the current state of climate science as agreed to by 97% of scientists in this area, just a random list of a bunch of not-particularly-respectable people who subscribe to a random grab-bag of more or less batty ideas.

Nylex_Clock said :

MERC600 said :

Dungfungus must need a rest. He’s been at it for 3-4 days. So to help him escape for a coldy , have a go at this lot. Am sure Dungfungus will , after a few ales, and a meat tray, will be all refreshed.

Its from that wikipedia thing, which has its problems. Have picked up a couple on their Johnny Cash page for instance.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections.

SNIP
long list of cut’n’paste consisting of discredited creationists, dowsers, credential-inflators, and people who have published denialist papers quickly demonstrated to have been rubbish.

If you have to rely on the likes of Spencer and Morner to buttress your opinion, you surely must realise your position is desperate?

Good grief ,, your saying the lot of them are but charlatans… Please let wiki know about this, and then post up your findings to us on the whole 150 of em ….. ( I thought they looked OK, some very impressive titles. Normally on a long list that nobody reads, someone slips in Bugs Bunny, but not on this list , as you found out )

dungfungus said :

Pork Hunt said :

dungfungus said :

Gee, almost 70mm of rain recorded at Tuggers. in 2 hours this arvo and more on the way.
I can hear the hand wringing already.

Why do people confuse climate and weather? A simple thunder storm (weather) has sweet fanny adams to do with climate change be that real or imagined.

Stand by for climate alarmist brainwashing of biblical proportions.

um, i think he was talking to you, dungfungus.

Nylex_Clock said :

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

Andrew Bolt used to challenge the regular panelists on Insiders (ABC TV, 9.00am Sunday) which I watch regularly. He impressed me. He writes for the Daily Telegraph which I read at the barber shop.
Can’t understand the rest of your missive.

Impressed by Andrew Bolt?? Enough said…

I think Bolt’s TV show has a bigger viewing audience than Insiders so, what is your point?

Possibly so which is unsurprising given the huge number of conservative fcuktards out there. There is nothing impressive about Andrew Bolt who is considered by many in the industry as little more than a village idiot.

In any case, Bob the Builder rates higher than either.

which is great, ’cause he can fix it. can’t he?

dungfungus said :

I doubt if two black eyes would either.

ooh look, they’re smarter than me and have ‘facts’ – let’s resort to [threats of] violence… keep your thuggishness off riotact. it becomes no-one.

Roy Spencer:
“”I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world.””

“I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone.”

“I am confident that you too will find the Bible not only to be in agreement with proven facts of science, but also to be the book which will lead you to a personal faith in God the creator of all things.”

”
We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.”

ROTFL!!!

’nuff said?

Maybe you’re curious about the quality of his “science” as it relates to climate change?’
Look no further than here:
http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/mathematical_analysis_of_roy_spencers_climate_model

So Dungfungus will believe in man made climate change only if we have dramatic exteme climate events? Mostly which are predicted to occur or worsen over the next century.

Sounds very convenient when you most likely won’t be alive to be proved wrong and won’t be affected by the consequences of our current actions. Take all the benefits and let future generations deal with it. Nice.

Don Easterbrook:
The likes of Dungfingers and his hero, Andrew Bolt, are constantly falsely accusing climate scientists of fraud, an accusation for which they are of course unable to provide any evidence.

Ironically, they like Don Easterbrook’s “work”.

Here’s a commentary on one example of Don Easterbrook’s “work”:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-easterbrook-fakes-his-figures-hides-the-incline/

If you want to get an idea of the quality of some of the other garbage he has flung at this issue, take a look at how his predictions have compared with reality:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Easterbrook_Zoom_1024.jpg

So this is the quality of the “science” the denialists rely on to justify their rejection of the published science of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.

Chris de Freitas:
says, “”‘I do not dispute that the carbon dioxide rise in the atmosphere is largely from the use of fossil fuels,’

‘No doubt rising carbon dioxide could “change the climate”. The basic physics is there to support this view.”.

Robert Carter:
– On the Heartland payroll.
– managed to publish one single climate-related paper which was completely discredited
– resorted to publishing books instead, books full of garbage, the enumeration of which takes many, many dozens of pages: here’s a short list as an example:
http://theconversation.com/bob-carters-climate-counter-consensus-is-an-alternate-reality-1553

Says there has been “no warming” because you can go back a few decades, find one a “hot” year then find a more recent year that isn’t as hot, then draw a line between the two and announce, “no warming”. This is beyond incompetence. Carter is obviously thoroughly unreliable.

Sallie Baliunas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy

Author of the worst paper in the field of climate science ever published.

“…misused precipitation and drought proxies without assessing their sensitivity to temperature, they had taken regional temperature changes as global changes without any attempt to show that they had occurred at the same time across the world, and they had taken as their base period for comparison mean temperatures over the whole of the 20th century, reconstructing past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends, thus failing to show whether or not late 20th century warming was anomalous.”

It’s worth having a look at this list of so-called scientists whose opinions apparently justify the denialists’ position: I’ll use Wikipedia.
Abdumasatov:
“…claims that “global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity. ”
Which is rubbish – no such growth has been recorded.
“…also contends that the natural greenhouse effect does not exist”.
So that’s that then – he says there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, something that is measurable, observable, and explained by basic physics.
Credibility? Nil.

dungfungus said :

MERC600 said :

Dungfungus must need a rest. He’s been at it for 3-4 days. So to help him escape for a coldy , have a go at this lot. Am sure Dungfungus will , after a few ales, and a meat tray, will be all refreshed.

Its from that wikipedia thing, which has its problems. Have picked up a couple on their Johnny Cash page for instance.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[10]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [11]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[12][13][14]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[15]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[16]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. [17]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[18]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [19]

Then when you wade through that lot, have a go at these

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[20]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[21]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[22][23]
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[24]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[25]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[26]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[27]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[28]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[29]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[30]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[31]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[32]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[33]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[34]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[35]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[36][37]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[38]
Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[39]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[40][41]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[42]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[43][44][45]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[46]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[47]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[48]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[49]

Thanks for that support – I do need a break as I have two days of medical tests coming up.
Also thanks to the new moderator who is as fair or fairer than any previous referee on this blog.
I rarely seek out such concise information as you have – I have an aversion to Wikipedia which I suspect is not 100% accurate. No doubt, the warmists will now change from armchair climate scientists to forensic scientists to prove (in their minds) that you are wrong and you are a conspiracy theorist etc. etc.
I wish I could say “I knew all that” but I can’t. It is a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo that only the most erudite can get a hold of and as it appears to have turned out it, experts will never agree.
Maybe I can hang onto my books a little longer before the men in hoods come and burn them.

Perhaps, on that Wikipedia page dedicated to listing scientist opposing the mainstream scientific assessment, MERC600 missed that chart right at the top?

Here I’ll link to it for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png

@Dumfungus – I’ll reply to your response to my earlier question a little latter. I’m busy just now.

MERC600 said :

Dungfungus must need a rest. He’s been at it for 3-4 days. So to help him escape for a coldy , have a go at this lot. Am sure Dungfungus will , after a few ales, and a meat tray, will be all refreshed.

Its from that wikipedia thing, which has its problems. Have picked up a couple on their Johnny Cash page for instance.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections.

SNIP
long list of cut’n’paste consisting of discredited creationists, dowsers, credential-inflators, and people who have published denialist papers quickly demonstrated to have been rubbish.

If you have to rely on the likes of Spencer and Morner to buttress your opinion, you surely must realise your position is desperate?

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

So, you can confirm that Fort Dennison is disappearing beneath the waves? I don’t read Andrew Bolt either.

Remember posting this the other day, Dungfingers?

I don’t read Andrew Bolt – I

You’re a liar. You are clearly parroting Bolt’s nonsense, you admit you read the paper that publishes it, and you admit you watch his execrable alternative current affairs TV show.

Dungy:+1 for population control, though it’s not entirely fair to criticise the UN over it. The UN is the sum of its parts, its parts being individual nations, and Australia as one of those nations has done nothing for population control. The Howard government introduced lots of incentives to have children, and they have barely been wound back by the ALP (some were probably added by them). Ditto immigration – taking other countries’ excess population just allows them to increase theirs even more.

Population increase in Oz is solely to provide economic activity – more houses, more stuff bought. But it’s a fiction. Australia’s growth in GDP is actually pretty close to zero once population increase and inflation are taken into account. (I can’t find whether official GDP figures take into account inflation, i.e. Real GDP, but they definitely don’t take into account population – that is GDP per capita.) China probably had it right with their One Child policy, but definitely had it wrong with the way they implemented it (punitively and cruelly, resulting in the wholesale murdering of baby girls).

Just like CO2 emissions, Australia can do its bit by setting an example, by reducing the incentives to have children, though I don’t know how far we should go – a purist approach would say no maternity leave, no childcare assistance, no subsidies to private schools etc. That whole package would be very hard to swallow, even for a childless grumpy old man like myself. Perhaps we should limit all these things two two children, a “replacement” approach, though who’s o say if 23 million is already too many, the right number, or not enough?

IP

Walker said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Geez, another one that want’s me to send in evidence of my Canberra Times Direct invoice.

Fabricated evidence won’t convince me.

I doubt if two black eyes would either.

Meh, tell that to the mirror.

Postalgeek, there seems little point asking dungfungus for his credentials.

It seems reasonable enough and perhaps not much influence overall on the topic that he does indeed read this and subscribe to that and, admittedly and interestingly, does have some eco-credentials in other areas (see earlier posts of his). And seems to run a heck of a tight household. That’s admirable.

Having said that, dungfungus is acting like a jerk by now, and I think his sociopathic throwing black eyes (even by riotact standards which are pretty messy fair enough) is really piss poor and churlish at best.

Dungfungus, come on, enough with the conspiracy theories, give us some substance. Give us some rationale dammit. Or am I just barking up the wrong tree… maybe.

I don’t need his credentials. I’m sure he probably does subscribe to the Canberra Times and only watches the ABC and SBS.

He’s happy to question the integrity of thousands of ‘carpetbaggers’ who have dedicated far more time and effort to, and possess far more knowledge about, the issue at hand than he ever will (I know one of them and I would stack my friend’s intellectual and moral integrity against his any day), and never provides evidence to back up his constant assertions while rejecting that which is offered to him, unless it’s leather-bound. Question his own authority and integrity, and deny the evidence he tries to present, and his walk diverges from his talk:

Scientists are being exploited as they are perceived to have credibility so all other opinion is being treated with derision – even some scientists who don’t agree with the extreme scaremongering of the reported majority are being abused and treated as pariahs. Such behaviour is at odds with living in a civilised society where expression of difference of opinion is a pillar of democracy – or it supposed to be. Just look at the craven comments directed at me on this blog.

=

Two projected black eyes if he finds your opinion to be frustratingly obtuse.

To his credit, he bypassed mundane insults.

MERC600 said :

Dungfungus must need a rest. He’s been at it for 3-4 days. So to help him escape for a coldy , have a go at this lot. Am sure Dungfungus will , after a few ales, and a meat tray, will be all refreshed.

Its from that wikipedia thing, which has its problems. Have picked up a couple on their Johnny Cash page for instance.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[10]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [11]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[12][13][14]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[15]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[16]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. [17]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[18]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [19]

Then when you wade through that lot, have a go at these

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[20]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[21]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[22][23]
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[24]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[25]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[26]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[27]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[28]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[29]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[30]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[31]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[32]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[33]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[34]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[35]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[36][37]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[38]
Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[39]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[40][41]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[42]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[43][44][45]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[46]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[47]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[48]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[49]

Thanks for that support – I do need a break as I have two days of medical tests coming up.
Also thanks to the new moderator who is as fair or fairer than any previous referee on this blog.
I rarely seek out such concise information as you have – I have an aversion to Wikipedia which I suspect is not 100% accurate. No doubt, the warmists will now change from armchair climate scientists to forensic scientists to prove (in their minds) that you are wrong and you are a conspiracy theorist etc. etc.
I wish I could say “I knew all that” but I can’t. It is a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo that only the most erudite can get a hold of and as it appears to have turned out it, experts will never agree.
Maybe I can hang onto my books a little longer before the men in hoods come and burn them.

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

So, you can confirm that Fort Dennison is disappearing beneath the waves? I don’t read Andrew Bolt either.

Remember posting this the other day, Dungfingers?

I don’t read Andrew Bolt – I said he writes for The Telegraph which I read at the barber’s shop (once every 6 weeks). Would you like a sworn deposition from the barber?
I haven’t seen any of his articles in the Telegraph yet (apparently he isn’t a daily contibutor) but I look forward to it. Seeing as so many people on this blog despise him it sounds like he writes good stuff.
Meanwhile I will continue to read my daily printed Canberra Times (which must be on death row by now) in the hope that that “cartoonist” Pope does an offering that doesn’t show Tony Abbott or Joe Hockey as deformed aliens.

Dungfungus, you weigh the facts proportionately relative to how much opposition? That’s shaky ground. Take it, if you must, but it doesn’t seem sound.

As for Pope, he does have a way with pictures that tell a thousand words that’s for sure. I never thought he’d cut it but he’s very good at what he does. And he’ll take on any side of politics and don’t forget he’s beholden to the editorial overlords so don’t pin it all on the Pope.

So Pope is a hostage to left wing overlords? Stop being an apoligist for him – he is a lefty by choice – it’s a condition of working for Fairfax Media.
You lecture me on facts, proportion and relativity but ignore how my opinions are overwhelmingly opposed and derided on this blog (with lots of personal abuse). I don’t think it is sound either but I have no apologies to make about being a responsible, law abiding member of our community with a strong committment to preservation of the environment in which we live in.
The problem we face globally is not “climate change”; it is the refusal of the UN and it’s executive members to even discuss population control let alone do anything about it. Common sense dictates that if we limit population control there will be a commensurate reduction in all emissions which will deliver the environmental outcome some people are demanding.
Of course, if this were to happen it would mean the demise of a very lucrative industry and lavish lifestyle for some people.
Thanks for not insulting me as most others do.

Walker said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Geez, another one that want’s me to send in evidence of my Canberra Times Direct invoice.

Fabricated evidence won’t convince me.

I doubt if two black eyes would either.

Meh, tell that to the mirror.

Postalgeek, there seems little point asking dungfungus for his credentials.

It seems reasonable enough and perhaps not much influence overall on the topic that he does indeed read this and subscribe to that and, admittedly and interestingly, does have some eco-credentials in other areas (see earlier posts of his). And seems to run a heck of a tight household. That’s admirable.

Having said that, dungfungus is acting like a jerk by now, and I think his sociopathic throwing black eyes (even by riotact standards which are pretty messy fair enough) is really piss poor and churlish at best.

Dungfungus, come on, enough with the conspiracy theories, give us some substance. Give us some rationale dammit. Or am I just barking up the wrong tree… maybe.

As I put forward earlier:
To convince me that there is a problem with man made “carbon pollution” interferring with the climate, for a start, I would have to see a weather event that had never happened before, a bushfire burn where it has never burned before and some of the wild predictions that people like Flannery have made happen (like dramatic rises in sea levels). The timing is important as well (within my lifetime which won’t be much longer).
Oh, and when we have another drought (like the one that is breaking now) that we have never had before. Better not forget floods either.

So, where is the conspiracy theory in that substantial response?
Yes you are barking up the wrong tree – barking mad would be more applicable.

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

So, you can confirm that Fort Dennison is disappearing beneath the waves? I don’t read Andrew Bolt either.

Remember posting this the other day, Dungfingers?

I don’t read Andrew Bolt – I said he writes for The Telegraph which I read at the barber’s shop (once every 6 weeks). Would you like a sworn deposition from the barber?
I haven’t seen any of his articles in the Telegraph yet (apparently he isn’t a daily contibutor) but I look forward to it. Seeing as so many people on this blog despise him it sounds like he writes good stuff.
Meanwhile I will continue to read my daily printed Canberra Times (which must be on death row by now) in the hope that that “cartoonist” Pope does an offering that doesn’t show Tony Abbott or Joe Hockey as deformed aliens.

Dungfungus, you weigh the facts proportionately relative to how much opposition? That’s shaky ground. Take it, if you must, but it doesn’t seem sound.

As for Pope, he does have a way with pictures that tell a thousand words that’s for sure. I never thought he’d cut it but he’s very good at what he does. And he’ll take on any side of politics and don’t forget he’s beholden to the editorial overlords so don’t pin it all on the Pope.

MERC600 said :

I forgot this lkot.

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth’s environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [60]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[61]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[62]

Sorry I haven’t got to your previous post! A few ales indeed.

MERC600 said :

I forgot this lkot.

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth’s environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [60]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[61]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[62]

Thanks, and nice you showed reference, you’re one up on me a lot of the time on that.

But that’s just two scientists. What does the scientific community make of this? They’re not exactly at the forefront of the research, put it that way. I’ve not looked deeply into it, except to say that I do know Craig D. Idso works for an organisation that’s been funded by Exxon Mobil. They claim it doesn’t matter.

Nonetheless we should hear of it and look at it, that’s good.

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Geez, another one that want’s me to send in evidence of my Canberra Times Direct invoice.

Fabricated evidence won’t convince me.

I doubt if two black eyes would either.

Meh, tell that to the mirror.

Postalgeek, there seems little point asking dungfungus for his credentials.

It seems reasonable enough and perhaps not much influence overall on the topic that he does indeed read this and subscribe to that and, admittedly and interestingly, does have some eco-credentials in other areas (see earlier posts of his). And seems to run a heck of a tight household. That’s admirable.

Having said that, dungfungus is acting like a jerk by now, and I think his sociopathic throwing black eyes (even by riotact standards which are pretty messy fair enough) is really piss poor and churlish at best.

Dungfungus, come on, enough with the conspiracy theories, give us some substance. Give us some rationale dammit. Or am I just barking up the wrong tree… maybe.

MERC600 said :

I forgot this lkot.

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth’s environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [60]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[61]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[62]

Heretics! Off with their heads!

Pork Hunt said :

dungfungus said :

Gee, almost 70mm of rain recorded at Tuggers. in 2 hours this arvo and more on the way.
I can hear the hand wringing already.

Why do people confuse climate and weather? A simple thunder storm (weather) has sweet fanny adams to do with climate change be that real or imagined.

Stand by for climate alarmist brainwashing of biblical proportions.

I forgot this lkot.

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth’s environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [60]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[61]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[62]

Dungfungus must need a rest. He’s been at it for 3-4 days. So to help him escape for a coldy , have a go at this lot. Am sure Dungfungus will , after a few ales, and a meat tray, will be all refreshed.

Its from that wikipedia thing, which has its problems. Have picked up a couple on their Johnny Cash page for instance.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[10]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [11]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[12][13][14]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[15]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[16]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. [17]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[18]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [19]

Then when you wade through that lot, have a go at these

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[20]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[21]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[22][23]
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[24]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[25]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[26]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[27]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[28]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[29]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[30]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[31]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[32]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[33]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[34]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[35]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[36][37]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[38]
Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[39]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[40][41]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[42]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[43][44][45]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[46]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[47]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[48]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[49]

dungfungus said :

Gee, almost 70mm of rain recorded at Tuggers. in 2 hours this arvo and more on the way.
I can hear the hand wringing already.

Why do people confuse climate and weather? A simple thunder storm (weather) has sweet fanny adams to do with climate change be that real or imagined.

I noticed that Dungfingers was repeating the lie that “the majority don’t believe in global warming”.

This lie was started by some right-wing fruitloop at a recent anti-science fruitloop conference, and repeated by Dungfingers’ favourite sources for anti-science: JoNova and Andrew Bolt.

dungfungus said :

You will need better evidence than that to convince the majority that (undefined) “carbon pollution” is interferring with the climate.

It’s not “undefined”:

“The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

It’s almost as if Dungfingers doesn’t know what he’s talking about!?

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

Andrew Bolt used to challenge the regular panelists on Insiders (ABC TV, 9.00am Sunday) which I watch regularly. He impressed me. He writes for the Daily Telegraph which I read at the barber shop.
Can’t understand the rest of your missive.

Impressed by Andrew Bolt?? Enough said…

I think Bolt’s TV show has a bigger viewing audience than Insiders so, what is your point?

Possibly so which is unsurprising given the huge number of conservative fcuktards out there. There is nothing impressive about Andrew Bolt who is considered by many in the industry as little more than a village idiot.

In any case, Bob the Builder rates higher than either.

dungfungus said :

The problem with real data collected by satellites is that it has only been happening for about 40 years. Why is it that you disciples of science refuse to read books with climate data pre-dating the intoduction of satellites.

Weirdly, many people have published temperature reconstructions that include pre-satellite era data on decadal, millenial scales and beyond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

It’s almost as if Dungfingers has no idea what he’s talking about!?

According to BOM Tuggers had 50mm in about 45min,is that a record?

Mind you that is SFA compared to these records:

http://www.bom.gov.au/water/designRainfalls/rainfallEvents/worldRecRainfall.shtml

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Geez, another one that want’s me to send in evidence of my Canberra Times Direct invoice.

Fabricated evidence won’t convince me.

I doubt if two black eyes would either.

Meh, tell that to the mirror.

Gee, almost 70mm of rain recorded at Tuggers. in 2 hours this arvo and more on the way.
I can hear the hand wringing already.

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

So, you can confirm that Fort Dennison is disappearing beneath the waves? I don’t read Andrew Bolt either.

Remember posting this the other day, Dungfingers?

I don’t read Andrew Bolt – I said he writes for The Telegraph which I read at the barber’s shop (once every 6 weeks). Would you like a sworn deposition from the barber?
I haven’t seen any of his articles in the Telegraph yet (apparently he isn’t a daily contibutor) but I look forward to it. Seeing as so many people on this blog despise him it sounds like he writes good stuff.
Meanwhile I will continue to read my daily printed Canberra Times (which must be on death row by now) in the hope that that “cartoonist” Pope does an offering that doesn’t show Tony Abbott or Joe Hockey as deformed aliens.

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

howeph said :

Dungfungus: What would it take to convince you that climate change is real? What evidence do you require to make you reconsider your position?

Conservative media telling him to reconsider his position.

Thank you for attempting a response on my behalf Postalgreek but I am a Canberra Times Direct subscriber and you could hardly refer to them as “conservative media”. Likewise, I listen exclusively to ABC radio (I hate advertisements) and watch only ABC TV or SBS TV.

No you aren’t and no you don’t. You have no idea what you are talking about. You may think you know what you’re talking about because you are an expert in Dungfungus media subscriptions, just like climate scientists could be seen as experts in climatology, but that is irrelevant. It is my opinion is that you listen exclusively to conservative media and I will not be bullied into thinking otherwise.

Geez, another one that want’s me to send in evidence of my Canberra Times Direct invoice.

Fabricated evidence won’t convince me.

I doubt if two black eyes would either.

dungfungus said :

howeph said :

dungfungus said :

howeph said :

So, back to the question again: What evidence, do you think you would need to see that could make you reconsider your current opinion?

So, your entire case is based on data collected from satellites over the last 40 years?

I’m not making a case. I’m asking you a question.

dungfungus said :

What happened to the other 70 years of the century that you were claiming in your previous post?

I made no such claim.

dungfungus said :

My references to modelling has always been about predictions, obviously.

And I didn’t claim otherwise. I only wanted to emphasise that the historical record on global average temperature are measurements.

dungfungus said :

You will need better evidence than that to convince the majority that (undefined) “carbon pollution” is interferring with the climate.

Again, I’m not trying to convince you of anything as yet. I’m asking a question. I’m asking what evidence you think it would take to make you even reconsider your opinion? What would give you any pause for thought?

Of course I have a reason for asking that question. I’m trying to see if you will even consider information that may change your understanding. Your refusal to answer the question is telling.

Someone said satellites were used in the 20th century to gather sea level data. I thought it was you but then you all read from the same page don’t you. I apologise and while I understood a century was 100 years I accept now that it is only 30 – 40 years.
To convince me that there is a problem with man made “carbon pollution” interferring with the climate, for a start, I would have to see a weather event that had never happened before, a bushfire burn where it has never burned before and some of the wild predictions that people like Flannery have made happen (like dramatic rises in sea levels). The timing is important as well (within my lifetime which won’t be much longer).

Oh, and when we have another drought (like the one that is breaking now) that we have never had before. Better not forget floods either.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-18/hendrie-growing-up-in-a-climate-of-fear/5265970

Some writer Banging The Drum for the ABC harping on about his “tiny son’s future”

:yawwwwnnn:

Aeek said :

Once again the BoM Captain’s Flat radar has broken down, It seems to be overheating more frequently. Coincidence?

Hmm perhaps it got hit by an Andrew Bolt?

But seriously since they upgraded the bloody thing they’ve had nothing but trouble, it would appear. Back to the drawing board methinks?

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

Andrew Bolt used to challenge the regular panelists on Insiders (ABC TV, 9.00am Sunday) which I watch regularly. He impressed me. He writes for the Daily Telegraph which I read at the barber shop.
Can’t understand the rest of your missive.

Impressed by Andrew Bolt?? Enough said…

I think Bolt’s TV show has a bigger viewing audience than Insiders so, what is your point?

Possibly so which is unsurprising given the huge number of conservative fcuktards out there. There is nothing impressive about Andrew Bolt who is considered by many in the industry as little more than a village idiot.

Looks like a few drops of rain coming down out there…

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

So, you can confirm that Fort Dennison is disappearing beneath the waves? I don’t read Andrew Bolt either.

Remember posting this the other day, Dungfingers?

Aeek said :

Once again the BoM Captain’s Flat radar has broken down, It seems to be overheating more frequently. Coincidence?

Source?

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Geez, another one that want’s me to send in evidence of my Canberra Times Direct invoice.

Fabricated evidence won’t convince me.

Give me you address and I will send it to you and refrain from calling me a liar.

So you print out your mock-up and send it to me. What’s that going to prove?

dungfungus said :

Andrew Bolt used to challenge the regular panelists on Insiders (ABC TV, 9.00am Sunday) which I watch regularly. He impressed me. He writes for the Daily Telegraph which I read at the barber shop.
Can’t understand the rest of your missive.

There’s your conservative media. Now we’re getting to the truth.

There you go again about “fabricating evidence”. I am happy to meet you with “the evidence” somewhere if you have the balls, which I doubt. Warmists like you have a problem dealing with the truth.
And as far as your “there’s your conservative media” revelation is concerned, read what I said again namely “I watch the ABC – I subscribe to Canberra Times Direct” which is not conservative media but I don’t despise it like you apparently despise Bolt (who I listen to or read when he is on the ABC or in a newspaper at the barber shop).
What is wrong with you warmists? You are always looking for the “the fifth leg on the cat”.

Okay, so instead of posting me your mock receipt, you now want to hand me your mock receipt? How does that make it any more believable?

Aeek said :

Once again the BoM Captain’s Flat radar has broken down

FYI, you can still track the rain in Canberra from the Wagga radar using the 256Km one.
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDR552.loop.shtml#skip

Once again the BoM Captain’s Flat radar has broken down, It seems to be overheating more frequently. Coincidence?

Dungfungus let me see if this sums it up…

1. Any information stored on a computer is by definition wrong.The only up to date information is contained in old books.If that information is transferred to a computer it immediately becomes wrong.

2. You once saw a satellite in the late 50s so you know everything there is to know about satellites. Information from them too can be ignored since they arent old books.

3. Andrew Bolt and The Telegraph are not mouthpieces of conservative media.

4. Monckton…..makes sense. (That was even hard to type!)

5. Y2K was a hoax because your Amiga 500 didnt catch fire 1 January.

6. You are an expert on computer systems so can make judgements on all these points.

Theres more but well that says enough now I think.

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

Andrew Bolt used to challenge the regular panelists on Insiders (ABC TV, 9.00am Sunday) which I watch regularly. He impressed me. He writes for the Daily Telegraph which I read at the barber shop.
Can’t understand the rest of your missive.

Impressed by Andrew Bolt?? Enough said…

I think Bolt’s TV show has a bigger viewing audience than Insiders so, what is your point?

howeph said :

dungfungus said :

howeph said :

So, back to the question again: What evidence, do you think you would need to see that could make you reconsider your current opinion?

So, your entire case is based on data collected from satellites over the last 40 years?

I’m not making a case. I’m asking you a question.

dungfungus said :

What happened to the other 70 years of the century that you were claiming in your previous post?

I made no such claim.

dungfungus said :

My references to modelling has always been about predictions, obviously.

And I didn’t claim otherwise. I only wanted to emphasise that the historical record on global average temperature are measurements.

dungfungus said :

You will need better evidence than that to convince the majority that (undefined) “carbon pollution” is interferring with the climate.

Again, I’m not trying to convince you of anything as yet. I’m asking a question. I’m asking what evidence you think it would take to make you even reconsider your opinion? What would give you any pause for thought?

Of course I have a reason for asking that question. I’m trying to see if you will even consider information that may change your understanding. Your refusal to answer the question is telling.

Someone said satellites were used in the 20th century to gather sea level data. I thought it was you but then you all read from the same page don’t you. I apologise and while I understood a century was 100 years I accept now that it is only 30 – 40 years.
To convince me that there is a problem with man made “carbon pollution” interferring with the climate, for a start, I would have to see a weather event that had never happened before, a bushfire burn where it has never burned before and some of the wild predictions that people like Flannery have made happen (like dramatic rises in sea levels). The timing is important as well (within my lifetime which won’t be much longer).

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Geez, another one that want’s me to send in evidence of my Canberra Times Direct invoice.

Fabricated evidence won’t convince me.

Give me you address and I will send it to you and refrain from calling me a liar.

So you print out your mock-up and send it to me. What’s that going to prove?

dungfungus said :

Andrew Bolt used to challenge the regular panelists on Insiders (ABC TV, 9.00am Sunday) which I watch regularly. He impressed me. He writes for the Daily Telegraph which I read at the barber shop.
Can’t understand the rest of your missive.

There’s your conservative media. Now we’re getting to the truth.

There you go again about “fabricating evidence”. I am happy to meet you with “the evidence” somewhere if you have the balls, which I doubt. Warmists like you have a problem dealing with the truth.
And as far as your “there’s your conservative media” revelation is concerned, read what I said again namely “I watch the ABC – I subscribe to Canberra Times Direct” which is not conservative media but I don’t despise it like you apparently despise Bolt (who I listen to or read when he is on the ABC or in a newspaper at the barber shop).
What is wrong with you warmists? You are always looking for the “the fifth leg on the cat”.

dungfungus said :

Andrew Bolt used to challenge the regular panelists on Insiders (ABC TV, 9.00am Sunday) which I watch regularly. He impressed me. He writes for the Daily Telegraph which I read at the barber shop.
Can’t understand the rest of your missive.

Surprise, surprise – the right-wing fan of anti-science denial turns out to be a liar.

Who’d have guessed?

dungfungus said :

So, you can confirm that Fort Dennison is disappearing beneath the waves? I don’t read Andrew Bolt either.

Remember posting this the other day, Dungfingers?

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Geez, another one that want’s me to send in evidence of my Canberra Times Direct invoice.

Fabricated evidence won’t convince me.

Give me you address and I will send it to you and refrain from calling me a liar.

So you print out your mock-up and send it to me. What’s that going to prove?

dungfungus said :

Andrew Bolt used to challenge the regular panelists on Insiders (ABC TV, 9.00am Sunday) which I watch regularly. He impressed me. He writes for the Daily Telegraph which I read at the barber shop.
Can’t understand the rest of your missive.

There’s your conservative media. Now we’re getting to the truth.

dungfungus said :

Andrew Bolt used to challenge the regular panelists on Insiders (ABC TV, 9.00am Sunday) which I watch regularly. He impressed me. He writes for the Daily Telegraph which I read at the barber shop.
Can’t understand the rest of your missive.

Impressed by Andrew Bolt?? Enough said…

dungfungus said :

howeph said :

So, back to the question again: What evidence, do you think you would need to see that could make you reconsider your current opinion?

So, your entire case is based on data collected from satellites over the last 40 years?

I’m not making a case. I’m asking you a question.

dungfungus said :

What happened to the other 70 years of the century that you were claiming in your previous post?

I made no such claim.

dungfungus said :

My references to modelling has always been about predictions, obviously.

And I didn’t claim otherwise. I only wanted to emphasise that the historical record on global average temperature are measurements.

dungfungus said :

You will need better evidence than that to convince the majority that (undefined) “carbon pollution” is interferring with the climate.

Again, I’m not trying to convince you of anything as yet. I’m asking a question. I’m asking what evidence you think it would take to make you even reconsider your opinion? What would give you any pause for thought?

Of course I have a reason for asking that question. I’m trying to see if you will even consider information that may change your understanding. Your refusal to answer the question is telling.

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Remember the “Year 2000”? It was a scam but everyone was convinced the world would implode – it didn’t.

Please learn how science works before commenting again.

What do you mean? Don’t you remember “everyone” saying that “the world would implode” due to some software being unable to rollover one of the digits in the Year field?

This is the thing about denialists: They just make stuff up, no matter how ridiculous, anything, to justify their paranoid beliefs.

You were probably still in nappies in the years 2000 or living on another planet. The carpetbaggers were everywhere selling software fixes for a non-problem.

That’s the thing about patching software that can’t rollover the millenia digit: when it’s fixed, it becomes a non-problem. Lucky they fixed it.

You will of course provide your reference to them selling their software fixes on the basis the “world would implode”, thus proving you’re not just making stuff up, right?

I didn’t buy one of the patches which proves it was a non-problem – I know a scam when I see it. To say “lucky they fixed it” is nonsense. The media were the ones beating up speculation about what might happen. You obviously believed in it, right?

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

I think you mean “the principles of science”
Please learn about how English expression works before you comment again.

I think we understand your understanding of those principles:
– Lord Monckton, JoNova, WUWT, and Andrew Bolt: “Good” science.
– Actual scientists: “BAD!!!”

I can’t really understand all of what you are raving on about but I saw Lord Monckton on TV at the National Press Club debating a self-appointed warmist and he was very well spoken. The media reports that followed generally dismissed what Monkton said but commented ad nauseum about his bulging eyes and what a good target he was for cartoonists. Warmists are good at personal abuse.
I’ve never heard of JoNova, who/what is she? I have heard of Jo Nesbo the author (but you lot don’t believe in books do you).
As for WUWT, WTF is that!
Andrew Bolt used to challenge the regular panelists on Insiders (ABC TV, 9.00am Sunday) which I watch regularly. He impressed me. He writes for the Daily Telegraph which I read at the barber shop.
Can’t understand the rest of your missive.

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

howeph said :

Dungfungus: What would it take to convince you that climate change is real? What evidence do you require to make you reconsider your position?

Conservative media telling him to reconsider his position.

Thank you for attempting a response on my behalf Postalgreek but I am a Canberra Times Direct subscriber and you could hardly refer to them as “conservative media”. Likewise, I listen exclusively to ABC radio (I hate advertisements) and watch only ABC TV or SBS TV.

No you aren’t and no you don’t. You have no idea what you are talking about. You may think you know what you’re talking about because you are an expert in Dungfungus media subscriptions, just like climate scientists could be seen as experts in climatology, but that is irrelevant. It is my opinion is that you listen exclusively to conservative media and I will not be bullied into thinking otherwise.

Geez, another one that want’s me to send in evidence of my Canberra Times Direct invoice.

Fabricated evidence won’t convince me.

Give me you address and I will send it to you and refrain from calling me a liar.

howeph said :

dungfungus said :

Um, did they have satellites in the 20th century?

Yep, various satellite data sets have been available since the 1970s.
[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements%5D

These satellite have been combined with ground station data by a number of independent teams each producing their own datasets. The 5 most used sources of global temperature data are:

* HadCRUT4 – global temperature from 1840 to the present day – maintained by the Met Office in the UK.

* GISS – global temperature from 1880 to the present day – maintained by NASA in the USA

* NCDS – global temperature from 1880 to the present day – maintained by National Climate Data Center in the USA

* RSS – global temperature from 1978 to the present day – maintained by Remote Sensing Systems; a scientific research company in Northern California

* UAH – global temperature from 1978 to the present day – maintained by the University of Alabama at Huntsville

Note: these are NOT MODELS. They are built from the instrument record. They are measurements from thermometers and satellite sensors.

So for the 20th century average I’ll let you choose between the first three or a combination of.

If you are interested here is what the GISS record from NASA looks like plotted as a chart: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

So, back to the question again: What evidence, do you think you would need to see that could make you reconsider your current opinion?

So, your entire case is based on data collected from satellites over the last 40 years? What happened to the other 70 years of the century that you were claiming in your previous post?
My references to modelling has always been about predictions, obviously.
You will need better evidence than that to convince the majority that (undefined) “carbon pollution” is interferring with the climate.

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

Um, did they have satellites in the 20th century?

So you don’t believe in satellites, either, huh?

I guess the data they have provided is slightly inconvenient for those who choose to believe the opposite of the story that data is telling…

Believe in satellites you say? I saw the first satellite (Sputnik 1) orbiting over Eastern Australia in October 1957. I was very excited, probably like you were when you installed your latest useless iPhone app.
The problem with real data collected by satellites is that it has only been happening for about 40 years. Why is it that you disciples of science refuse to read books with climate data pre-dating the intoduction of satellites. When are you planning the next book burning night?

dungfungus said :

Then we have the contemporary version of this which is called “climate change” re-branded after “global warming” didn’t quite fit (as more cooling has been evident than warming) and “climate variability” was found to be a tautology as climate is a variable by definition anyhow.

Go to the BoM website. Download weather observations for any location within Australia that dates back to at least 1950 or earlier. Plug the average minimum temperatures (weekly, monthly or annual) into a spreadsheet and generate a graph. A line graph will work very well here. Describe the trend shown in your graph.

HINT: Your graph will clearly demonstrate that things are getting warmer (not cooler), particularly post 1961. Call it climate change, climate variability, or even call it Tinkerbell. The trend in your graph will speak for itself.

I seriously don’t know why we bother to try and argue with the sceptics and denial merchants. Honestly, if they don’t have the intellectual wherewithall to understand the concept there’s no point in explaining it to them. I mean seriously, do you honestly think that if you asked all the blue-green algae in the lake to move on so we could all swim in safety that they would get it? It’s the same pointless exercise trying to get the denialists etc to comprehend. they never will so why bother?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Please learn how science works before commenting again.

Why don’t you tell us how you think science works Gamer?

dungfungus said :

Um, did they have satellites in the 20th century?

Yep, various satellite data sets have been available since the 1970s.
[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements%5D

These satellite have been combined with ground station data by a number of independent teams each producing their own datasets. The 5 most used sources of global temperature data are:

* HadCRUT4 – global temperature from 1840 to the present day – maintained by the Met Office in the UK.

* GISS – global temperature from 1880 to the present day – maintained by NASA in the USA

* NCDS – global temperature from 1880 to the present day – maintained by National Climate Data Center in the USA

* RSS – global temperature from 1978 to the present day – maintained by Remote Sensing Systems; a scientific research company in Northern California

* UAH – global temperature from 1978 to the present day – maintained by the University of Alabama at Huntsville

Note: these are NOT MODELS. They are built from the instrument record. They are measurements from thermometers and satellite sensors.

So for the 20th century average I’ll let you choose between the first three or a combination of.

If you are interested here is what the GISS record from NASA looks like plotted as a chart: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

So, back to the question again: What evidence, do you think you would need to see that could make you reconsider your current opinion?

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

howeph said :

Dungfungus: What would it take to convince you that climate change is real? What evidence do you require to make you reconsider your position?

Conservative media telling him to reconsider his position.

Thank you for attempting a response on my behalf Postalgreek but I am a Canberra Times Direct subscriber and you could hardly refer to them as “conservative media”. Likewise, I listen exclusively to ABC radio (I hate advertisements) and watch only ABC TV or SBS TV.

No you aren’t and no you don’t. You have no idea what you are talking about. You may think you know what you’re talking about because you are an expert in Dungfungus media subscriptions, just like climate scientists could be seen as experts in climatology, but that is irrelevant. It is my opinion is that you listen exclusively to conservative media and I will not be bullied into thinking otherwise.

Geez, another one that want’s me to send in evidence of my Canberra Times Direct invoice.

Fabricated evidence won’t convince me.

According to Wikipedia the Earth’s average surface temperature rose by 0.74±0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13±0.03 °C per decade, versus 0.07±0.02 °C per decade).

The vast majority of scientists believe that global warming is anthropogenic so as a layman who am I to question the validity of the research. Whether dungfungus or anyone else chooses not to accept the science does not alter the findings.

So let’s face it attempting to persuade the deniers that global warming is real is an exercise in futility or is that stupidity?

dungfungus said :

I think you mean “the principles of science”
Please learn about how English expression works before you comment again.

I think we understand your understanding of those principles:
– Lord Monckton, JoNova, WUWT, and Andrew Bolt: “Good” science.
– Actual scientists: “BAD!!!”

dungfungus said :

Um, did they have satellites in the 20th century?

So you don’t believe in satellites, either, huh?

I guess the data they have provided is slightly inconvenient for those who choose to believe the opposite of the story that data is telling…

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Remember the “Year 2000”? It was a scam but everyone was convinced the world would implode – it didn’t.

Please learn how science works before commenting again.

What do you mean? Don’t you remember “everyone” saying that “the world would implode” due to some software being unable to rollover one of the digits in the Year field?

This is the thing about denialists: They just make stuff up, no matter how ridiculous, anything, to justify their paranoid beliefs.

You were probably still in nappies in the years 2000 or living on another planet. The carpetbaggers were everywhere selling software fixes for a non-problem.

That’s the thing about patching software that can’t rollover the millenia digit: when it’s fixed, it becomes a non-problem. Lucky they fixed it.

You will of course provide your reference to them selling their software fixes on the basis the “world would implode”, thus proving you’re not just making stuff up, right?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

howeph said :

Dungfungus: What would it take to convince you that climate change is real? What evidence do you require to make you reconsider your position?

Conservative media telling him to reconsider his position.

Thank you for attempting a response on my behalf Postalgreek but I am a Canberra Times Direct subscriber and you could hardly refer to them as “conservative media”. Likewise, I listen exclusively to ABC radio (I hate advertisements) and watch only ABC TV or SBS TV.
Re “climate change”, let’s understand what you are talking about first (you didn’t actually say what you mean by the term).
I believe that the aggregate climate is constantly changing albeit impercetibly and I doubt if anyone could argue that point.
Then we have the contemporary version of this which is called “climate change” re-branded after “global warming” didn’t quite fit (as more cooling has been evident than warming) and “climate variability” was found to be a tautology as climate is a variable by definition anyhow.
Thanks to a lot of scare mongering initially by the UN (who see climate change as an opportunity to soak the rich nations to fund their mostly useless third world ventures which universally exclude population control), an industry of carpetbaggers emerged (you all know who they are) and by convincing governments to direct funding to thousands of “climate scientists” (they never existed in such numbers until recently and some have even reached celebrity status) we now have this riduculous situation where every bushfire and flood (even suggestions of earthquakes) are blamed on man made climate change due to “carbon pollution”.
Scientists are being exploited as they are perceived to have credibility so all other opinion is being treated with derision – even some scientists who don’t agree with the extreme scaremongering of the reported majority are being abused and treated as pariahs. Such behaviour is at odds with living in a civilised society where expression of difference of opinion is a pillar of democracy – or it supposed to be. Just look at the craven comments directed at me on this blog.
I could go on but there will already be brains exploding and a million links being directed to me.
Few people care to research old books which explain climate research from a practical perspective (field data gathered over 30 years for example) – it is easier to use computer models these days but even they can rarely predict the weather in 7 days let alone in 100 years.
I feel for the heretics of the middle ages who were thrown in dams to either drown or swim to safety. If they managed the latter they were burnt at the stake anyhow. It’s getting like that with believers and deniers (names chosen by the former group).
Remember the “Year 2000”? It was a scam but everyone was convinced the world would implode – it didn’t.

Please learn how science works before commenting again.

I think you mean “the principles of science”
Please learn about how English expression works before you comment again.

howeph said :

dungfungus said :

[…] Re “climate change”, let’s understand what you are talking about first (you didn’t actually say what you mean by the term).

I agree. I should have been more precise.

By “climate change” I was referring to a global average temperature increase caused by human activity.

dungfungus said :

I believe that …

You then go on to describe your current opinion.

I understand that you don’t think that human induced global warming is real or important; but you haven’t answered the question asked.

My question is: What evidence, do you think you would need to see, could make you reconsider your current opinion?

To give an example: My current opinion is that human induced global warming is real, happening now and if not halted very soon, will have devastating long term costs. Evidence that would make me reconsider my opinion is if the satellite measurements of global average surface temperatures returned to the 20th century average.

Um, did they have satellites in the 20th century?

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

howeph said :

Dungfungus: What would it take to convince you that climate change is real? What evidence do you require to make you reconsider your position?

Conservative media telling him to reconsider his position.

Thank you for attempting a response on my behalf Postalgreek but I am a Canberra Times Direct subscriber and you could hardly refer to them as “conservative media”. Likewise, I listen exclusively to ABC radio (I hate advertisements) and watch only ABC TV or SBS TV.

No you aren’t and no you don’t. You have no idea what you are talking about. You may think you know what you’re talking about because you are an expert in Dungfungus media subscriptions, just like climate scientists could be seen as experts in climatology, but that is irrelevant. It is my opinion is that you listen exclusively to conservative media and I will not be bullied into thinking otherwise.

Geez, another one that want’s me to send in evidence of my Canberra Times Direct invoice.

Nylex_Clock said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Remember the “Year 2000”? It was a scam but everyone was convinced the world would implode – it didn’t.

Please learn how science works before commenting again.

What do you mean? Don’t you remember “everyone” saying that “the world would implode” due to some software being unable to rollover one of the digits in the Year field?

This is the thing about denialists: They just make stuff up, no matter how ridiculous, anything, to justify their paranoid beliefs.

You were probably still in nappies in the years 2000 or living on another planet. The carpetbaggers were everywhere selling software fixes for a non-problem.

Nylex_Clock said :

IrishPete said :

You’ve also moved the goalposts. Now it IS debt, it’s just good debt?

So you’ve changed your tune now? It’s not “taxpayer money”. It’s bonds issued to investors.

Underwritten by the Australian taxpayers.

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

howeph said :

Dungfungus: What would it take to convince you that climate change is real? What evidence do you require to make you reconsider your position?

Conservative media telling him to reconsider his position.

Thank you for attempting a response on my behalf Postalgreek but I am a Canberra Times Direct subscriber and you could hardly refer to them as “conservative media”. Likewise, I listen exclusively to ABC radio (I hate advertisements) and watch only ABC TV or SBS TV.

No you aren’t and no you don’t. You have no idea what you are talking about. You may think you know what you’re talking about because you are an expert in Dungfungus media subscriptions, just like climate scientists could be seen as experts in climatology, but that is irrelevant. It is my opinion is that you listen exclusively to conservative media and I will not be bullied into thinking otherwise.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

howeph said :

Dungfungus: What would it take to convince you that climate change is real? What evidence do you require to make you reconsider your position?

Conservative media telling him to reconsider his position.

Thank you for attempting a response on my behalf Postalgreek but I am a Canberra Times Direct subscriber and you could hardly refer to them as “conservative media”. Likewise, I listen exclusively to ABC radio (I hate advertisements) and watch only ABC TV or SBS TV.
Re “climate change”, let’s understand what you are talking about first (you didn’t actually say what you mean by the term).
I believe that the aggregate climate is constantly changing albeit impercetibly and I doubt if anyone could argue that point.
Then we have the contemporary version of this which is called “climate change” re-branded after “global warming” didn’t quite fit (as more cooling has been evident than warming) and “climate variability” was found to be a tautology as climate is a variable by definition anyhow.
Thanks to a lot of scare mongering initially by the UN (who see climate change as an opportunity to soak the rich nations to fund their mostly useless third world ventures which universally exclude population control), an industry of carpetbaggers emerged (you all know who they are) and by convincing governments to direct funding to thousands of “climate scientists” (they never existed in such numbers until recently and some have even reached celebrity status) we now have this riduculous situation where every bushfire and flood (even suggestions of earthquakes) are blamed on man made climate change due to “carbon pollution”.
Scientists are being exploited as they are perceived to have credibility so all other opinion is being treated with derision – even some scientists who don’t agree with the extreme scaremongering of the reported majority are being abused and treated as pariahs. Such behaviour is at odds with living in a civilised society where expression of difference of opinion is a pillar of democracy – or it supposed to be. Just look at the craven comments directed at me on this blog.
I could go on but there will already be brains exploding and a million links being directed to me.
Few people care to research old books which explain climate research from a practical perspective (field data gathered over 30 years for example) – it is easier to use computer models these days but even they can rarely predict the weather in 7 days let alone in 100 years.
I feel for the heretics of the middle ages who were thrown in dams to either drown or swim to safety. If they managed the latter they were burnt at the stake anyhow. It’s getting like that with believers and deniers (names chosen by the former group).
Remember the “Year 2000”? It was a scam but everyone was convinced the world would implode – it didn’t.

Please learn how science works before commenting again.

echo, echo, echo…. excellent point, but talking to a brick wall, methinks.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Remember the “Year 2000”? It was a scam but everyone was convinced the world would implode – it didn’t.

Please learn how science works before commenting again.

What do you mean? Don’t you remember “everyone” saying that “the world would implode” due to some software being unable to rollover one of the digits in the Year field?

This is the thing about denialists: They just make stuff up, no matter how ridiculous, anything, to justify their paranoid beliefs.

IrishPete said :

You’ve also moved the goalposts. Now it IS debt, it’s just good debt?

So you’ve changed your tune now? It’s not “taxpayer money”. It’s bonds issued to investors.

dungfungus said :

[…] Re “climate change”, let’s understand what you are talking about first (you didn’t actually say what you mean by the term).

I agree. I should have been more precise.

By “climate change” I was referring to a global average temperature increase caused by human activity.

dungfungus said :

I believe that …

You then go on to describe your current opinion.

I understand that you don’t think that human induced global warming is real or important; but you haven’t answered the question asked.

My question is: What evidence, do you think you would need to see, could make you reconsider your current opinion?

To give an example: My current opinion is that human induced global warming is real, happening now and if not halted very soon, will have devastating long term costs. Evidence that would make me reconsider my opinion is if the satellite measurements of global average surface temperatures returned to the 20th century average.

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

howeph said :

Dungfungus: What would it take to convince you that climate change is real? What evidence do you require to make you reconsider your position?

Conservative media telling him to reconsider his position.

Thank you for attempting a response on my behalf Postalgreek but I am a Canberra Times Direct subscriber and you could hardly refer to them as “conservative media”. Likewise, I listen exclusively to ABC radio (I hate advertisements) and watch only ABC TV or SBS TV.
Re “climate change”, let’s understand what you are talking about first (you didn’t actually say what you mean by the term).
I believe that the aggregate climate is constantly changing albeit impercetibly and I doubt if anyone could argue that point.
Then we have the contemporary version of this which is called “climate change” re-branded after “global warming” didn’t quite fit (as more cooling has been evident than warming) and “climate variability” was found to be a tautology as climate is a variable by definition anyhow.
Thanks to a lot of scare mongering initially by the UN (who see climate change as an opportunity to soak the rich nations to fund their mostly useless third world ventures which universally exclude population control), an industry of carpetbaggers emerged (you all know who they are) and by convincing governments to direct funding to thousands of “climate scientists” (they never existed in such numbers until recently and some have even reached celebrity status) we now have this riduculous situation where every bushfire and flood (even suggestions of earthquakes) are blamed on man made climate change due to “carbon pollution”.
Scientists are being exploited as they are perceived to have credibility so all other opinion is being treated with derision – even some scientists who don’t agree with the extreme scaremongering of the reported majority are being abused and treated as pariahs. Such behaviour is at odds with living in a civilised society where expression of difference of opinion is a pillar of democracy – or it supposed to be. Just look at the craven comments directed at me on this blog.
I could go on but there will already be brains exploding and a million links being directed to me.
Few people care to research old books which explain climate research from a practical perspective (field data gathered over 30 years for example) – it is easier to use computer models these days but even they can rarely predict the weather in 7 days let alone in 100 years.
I feel for the heretics of the middle ages who were thrown in dams to either drown or swim to safety. If they managed the latter they were burnt at the stake anyhow. It’s getting like that with believers and deniers (names chosen by the former group).
Remember the “Year 2000”? It was a scam but everyone was convinced the world would implode – it didn’t.

Please learn how science works before commenting again.

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

IrishPete said :

If it’s self-funding, where’s the 40, 50, 60 billion of taxpayer funds going?

What taxpayer funds?

Are you referring to the government-issued bonds paying 4% to investors and structured to return 7%?

I am amazed that this furphy about the NBN “costing taxpayers” rears its head again and again despite this having been explained a million times.

This is why I resent being governed by loonies voted in by ignorants.

So, you are branding the majority of the electorate as being ignorant then?

This is fact.

Nylex_Clock said :

Neither of you seems to have grasped the fact that the infrastructure produced by the NBN project will generate revenue. So it is not a liability like superannuation.
And you’re correct, IP, it’s not like borrowing money from the ANZ or extending your overdraught – with the debt costing a very cheap 4%, it is enormously clear that the revenue to be generated will easily exceed the cost of those bonds, thus costing the taxpayer nothing while producing important and much-needed infrastructure.

The stories about “white elephants” are the smokescreen fed to the gullible by the corrupt politicians who are doing Murdoch’s bidding.

“Neither of you…” try reading the posts first. I gave you specific examples of other government infrastructure projects that do create revenue, and you chose to ignore that. You’re not being objective there, dude. In fact I could have given some more – not just toll roads and bridges, but railway lines (they charge for their use) and ports.

You’ve also moved the goalposts. Now it IS debt, it’s just good debt? Did I get that right? Tell me, is government paying a return on those bonds right now? How much is that return? Where is it coming from, cos it sure ain’t coming from NBN customers (some of it maybe, but not much)?

Please also feel free to refer me to the detailed business case and cost benefit analysis the government undertook before starting this project (I don’t mean the legendary but probably apocryphal paper napkin). If you simply accept the bland assurances of investment returns that some politicians have made, then I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

You do no favours for the climate change agenda when you lack objectivity on other government policy. I’m quite happy to hear a cogent case for the NBN, but it hasn’t been made and you are not making it. Only a political case has been made, and the pros and cons of the NBN has been drowned out by partisan political bickering. I actually think it will probably pay for itself, eventually, but that’s not the only question – when, what other investment might have been better, are also reasonable questions.

It doesn’t help that I have no idea if and when I will receive the NBN, fibre, wireless or satellite, nor the fiction that satellite NBN is already available (it seems to be the same satellite as was previously available, simply rebranded; I don’t think I’m allowed to get it anyway because no-one has decided whether I’ll be in a fibre, wireless or satellite area). I don’t think that makes me against it, though it might give me a different perspective than the people who want a fibre-optic cable installed all the way to their brain, for free. I am not being dazzled by the offer of a shiny high-tech bauble.

IP

howeph said :

Dungfungus: What would it take to convince you that climate change is real? What evidence do you require to make you reconsider your position?

I suspect his main sources of “credible” information are handed to him by people on street corners. To be fair they are neatly stapled in the corner. More koolaid?

dungfungus said :

Cash depositors used to be the highest ranking creditors

Isn’t there (yet another government) guarantee of bank deposits, up to $250k? Another subsidy to the banks, as it prevented the withdrawal of cash during the GFC, that run on cash being what shut some overseas banks.

Agreed that the community is ill-informed on a lot of matters. One of those is climate change. 97% of scientists can’t be wrong. Well, of course they can, but we are working on probabilities here, and if you had to bet your $250k of government-guaranteed savings on whether anthropogenic climate change is right or wrong, then any sensible gambler would bet on the former horse.

When one element of the modeling turns out to be inaccurate (not wrong, just not 100% accurate), or when something else happens in the environment to disrupt the speed of change and the accuracy of the model, that doesn’t make ACC wrong. The proof of the ACC pudding will be in the eating, and I do hope we never have to get to that point, because it could be quite unpleasant. The cost of prevention is worth it,, and will have other benefits like eking out fossil fuels for longer, and taking some wind out of the sails of the nuclear power/bomb lobby.

IP

Postalgeek said :

howeph said :

Dungfungus: What would it take to convince you that climate change is real? What evidence do you require to make you reconsider your position?

Conservative media telling him to reconsider his position.

Lol.

And that’s the nub of it.

It’s not about being informed, it’s about a tribalistic desire to belong to the climate-denying in-goup.

bundah said :

Nylex_Clock said :

.This is why I resent being governed by loonies voted in by ignorants.

Ignorants is not a recognised word. They’re ignoramuses or one could refer to them as pig-ignorant or perhaps swine….

And yet this word successfully communicated my meaning to you, which is the purpose of language be it “recognised” or not.

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

Government bonds are government debt. That’s what is meant by government debt. It’s not an overdraft or a personal loan from the ANZ. Or a mortgage from Aussie Home Loans secured against Government House.

State and local government debt come to mind as does unfunded public service superannuation as well as any guarantees the the government enters into as you correctly pointed out…

Neither of you seems to have grasped the fact that the infrastructure produced by the NBN project will generate revenue. So it is not a liability like superannuation.
And you’re correct, IP, it’s not like borrowing money from the ANZ or extending your overdraught – with the debt costing a very cheap 4%, it is enormously clear that the revenue to be generated will easily exceed the cost of those bonds, thus costing the taxpayer nothing while producing important and much-needed infrastructure.

The stories about “white elephants” are the smokescreen fed to the gullible by the corrupt politicians who are doing Murdoch’s bidding.

Nylex_Clock said :

IrishPete said :

If it’s self-funding, where’s the 40, 50, 60 billion of taxpayer funds going?

What taxpayer funds?

Are you referring to the government-issued bonds paying 4% to investors and structured to return 7%?

I am amazed that this furphy about the NBN “costing taxpayers” rears its head again and again despite this having been explained a million times.

This is why I resent being governed by loonies voted in by ignorants.

So, you are branding the majority of the electorate as being ignorant then?

Postalgeek said :

howeph said :

Dungfungus: What would it take to convince you that climate change is real? What evidence do you require to make you reconsider your position?

Conservative media telling him to reconsider his position.

Thank you for attempting a response on my behalf Postalgreek but I am a Canberra Times Direct subscriber and you could hardly refer to them as “conservative media”. Likewise, I listen exclusively to ABC radio (I hate advertisements) and watch only ABC TV or SBS TV.
Re “climate change”, let’s understand what you are talking about first (you didn’t actually say what you mean by the term).
I believe that the aggregate climate is constantly changing albeit impercetibly and I doubt if anyone could argue that point.
Then we have the contemporary version of this which is called “climate change” re-branded after “global warming” didn’t quite fit (as more cooling has been evident than warming) and “climate variability” was found to be a tautology as climate is a variable by definition anyhow.
Thanks to a lot of scare mongering initially by the UN (who see climate change as an opportunity to soak the rich nations to fund their mostly useless third world ventures which universally exclude population control), an industry of carpetbaggers emerged (you all know who they are) and by convincing governments to direct funding to thousands of “climate scientists” (they never existed in such numbers until recently and some have even reached celebrity status) we now have this riduculous situation where every bushfire and flood (even suggestions of earthquakes) are blamed on man made climate change due to “carbon pollution”.
Scientists are being exploited as they are perceived to have credibility so all other opinion is being treated with derision – even some scientists who don’t agree with the extreme scaremongering of the reported majority are being abused and treated as pariahs. Such behaviour is at odds with living in a civilised society where expression of difference of opinion is a pillar of democracy – or it supposed to be. Just look at the craven comments directed at me on this blog.
I could go on but there will already be brains exploding and a million links being directed to me.
Few people care to research old books which explain climate research from a practical perspective (field data gathered over 30 years for example) – it is easier to use computer models these days but even they can rarely predict the weather in 7 days let alone in 100 years.
I feel for the heretics of the middle ages who were thrown in dams to either drown or swim to safety. If they managed the latter they were burnt at the stake anyhow. It’s getting like that with believers and deniers (names chosen by the former group).
Remember the “Year 2000”? It was a scam but everyone was convinced the world would implode – it didn’t.

IrishPete said :

Nylex_Clock said :

IrishPete said :

If it’s self-funding, where’s the 40, 50, 60 billion of taxpayer funds going?

What taxpayer funds?

Are you referring to the government-issued bonds paying 4% to investors and structured to return 7%?

I am amazed that this furphy about the NBN “costing taxpayers” rears its head again and again despite this having been explained a million times.

This is why I resent being governed by loonies voted in by ignorants.

I’m glad you’re not my financial planner. Is this your website http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/how-are-we-paying-for-it/ ?

Government bonds are government debt. That’s what is meant by government debt. It’s not an overdraft or a personal loan from the ANZ. Or a mortgage from Aussie Home Loans secured against Government House.

Throughout history Governments have not proven very adept at properly estimating the costs of projects (and this seems to have been the case for the NBN too), and nor would it surprise me if they have also been optimistic in calculating the return on investment. Think toll roads for a similar model, and think about how few of them have actually been profitable. At least with those, State governments have generally been sensible enough to get the private sector to take the risk, and it is the banks who have taken a bath when the operator goes bankrupt. . Who is taking the risk with the NBN, who is the banker? The Commonwealth Government, i.e. the taxpayer. Think about this too when the Government offers to guarantee Qantas debt – there’s no such thing as a free lunch, and while there may be no up front cash cost, there is a risk of a substantial cash cost when you guarantee the loan of a company with “junk” status.

There is an opportunity cost to all government spending and borrowing. Yeah, you wouldn’t borrow for recurrent costs (health services, education etc), but you would for infrastructure (hospitals, school buildings, roads and bridges, rail, airports). Some of those have potential for paying for themselves, directly or indirectly.

This probably deserves another thread, but astrojax want his Mully (assuming JohnBoy didn’t take it with him in the box with all the pens and paperclips).

IP

Well said IP.
For too long the general public has been uninformed (the term ignorant is reserved exclusively for climate change deniers) about government debt and more importantly, the contingent liabilities that the “government” i.e. taxpayers, have to underwrite.
State and local government debt come to mind as does unfunded public service superannuation as well as any guarantees the the government enters into as you correctly pointed out.
Amazingly, I have met lots of people who have shares in banks (directly or via their superannuation) who believe that shares are the highest ranking security one can have and in the event of a financial crisis (yes there have been many bank failures throughout history just as there have been lots of “extreme weather events”). Cash depositors used to be the highest ranking creditors but there is now speculation that covered bonds have taken first place – this latter form of bank borrowing should never have been allowed as it waters down the security of the remaining creditors, especially shareholders.
Yes, there are a lot of financially illiterate people out there. A lot of them would be the same gullible people who believe the sky is falling due to the infinite increase of atmospheric CO2.

howeph said :

Dungfungus: What would it take to convince you that climate change is real? What evidence do you require to make you reconsider your position?

Climate change denialists are basically the same as the anti-vaccination movement.

They could believe the vast majority of scientific research, all of which points to the same conclusion; or they could choose to cling to the fringe element that reinforces their own opinions and at the same time resort to anecdotal evidence to ‘prove’ their point.

Nylex_Clock said :

IrishPete said :

If it’s self-funding, where’s the 40, 50, 60 billion of taxpayer funds going?

What taxpayer funds?

Are you referring to the government-issued bonds paying 4% to investors and structured to return 7%?

I am amazed that this furphy about the NBN “costing taxpayers” rears its head again and again despite this having been explained a million times.

This is why I resent being governed by loonies voted in by ignorants.

I’m glad you’re not my financial planner. Is this your website http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/how-are-we-paying-for-it/ ?

Government bonds are government debt. That’s what is meant by government debt. It’s not an overdraft or a personal loan from the ANZ. Or a mortgage from Aussie Home Loans secured against Government House.

Throughout history Governments have not proven very adept at properly estimating the costs of projects (and this seems to have been the case for the NBN too), and nor would it surprise me if they have also been optimistic in calculating the return on investment. Think toll roads for a similar model, and think about how few of them have actually been profitable. At least with those, State governments have generally been sensible enough to get the private sector to take the risk, and it is the banks who have taken a bath when the operator goes bankrupt. . Who is taking the risk with the NBN, who is the banker? The Commonwealth Government, i.e. the taxpayer. Think about this too when the Government offers to guarantee Qantas debt – there’s no such thing as a free lunch, and while there may be no up front cash cost, there is a risk of a substantial cash cost when you guarantee the loan of a company with “junk” status.

There is an opportunity cost to all government spending and borrowing. Yeah, you wouldn’t borrow for recurrent costs (health services, education etc), but you would for infrastructure (hospitals, school buildings, roads and bridges, rail, airports). Some of those have potential for paying for themselves, directly or indirectly.

This probably deserves another thread, but astrojax want his Mully (assuming JohnBoy didn’t take it with him in the box with all the pens and paperclips).

IP

Nylex_Clock said :

.This is why I resent being governed by loonies voted in by ignorants.

Ignorants is not a recognised word. They’re ignoramuses or one could refer to them as pig-ignorant or perhaps swine….

IrishPete said :

If it’s self-funding, where’s the 40, 50, 60 billion of taxpayer funds going?

What taxpayer funds?

Are you referring to the government-issued bonds paying 4% to investors and structured to return 7%?

I am amazed that this furphy about the NBN “costing taxpayers” rears its head again and again despite this having been explained a million times.

This is why I resent being governed by loonies voted in by ignorants.

howeph said :

IP, follow your own advice. The NBN is Off Topic for this thread. If you want to talk about it create or resurrect another thread.

Moderator: Can you keep them on topic please?

Fair enough. I was trying to distract people with shiny high tech gadgets. it worked.

IP

howeph said :

Dungfungus: What would it take to convince you that climate change is real? What evidence do you require to make you reconsider your position?

Conservative media telling him to reconsider his position.

dungfungus said :

.

While you are hot, please tell me about tectonic plate convergence. I mentioned it in an earlier post but no one cared to contradict me when I suggested it was causing island states to sink.

More diversion from Dungfingers, who can’t cope with the basic reality that sea level rise is an observed reality, independent of any subsidence, isostatic rebound, sedimentary buildup, or tectonic movement all of which are also observed realities that can affect a location’s relative sea level.

IP, follow your own advice. The NBN is Off Topic for this thread. If you want to talk about it create or resurrect another thread.

Moderator: Can you keep them on topic please?

Dungfungus: What would it take to convince you that climate change is real? What evidence do you require to make you reconsider your position?

IrishPete said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

Rubbish, IP, the NBN is providing infrastructure that is far, far closer to being self-funding than any roads or railways have ever been, and it’s cheap.
Glass will not “fail” in 20 years. We are currently still using copper that started going in the ground almost 100 years ago. Glass is far less prone to the maintenance problems copper gives us, and it will be around far longer.

If it’s self-funding, where’s the 40, 50, 60 billion of taxpayer funds going? Someone should call the police. Or do you mean the non-existent cost benefit analysis shows it will be self-funding at some unknown date in the future when it is finally finished and the debt paid off?

Of course the fibre will lat a long time. But is fibre-optic technology the way of the future, or will it be left behind and replaced with something else? Like those sad microwave towers scattered around rural Australia. Digging a hole and putting a cable in it is not actually rocket science. Not even a fibre-optic cable. They were doing that in the UK when I left in the late 1990s. And every time someone had to dig up a sewer or water main or telephone wire or electricity cable, they seemed to break the fibre-optic cable. (Okay, I made that up, but it sometime happened.)

There’s a lot of heat around the NBN, not much light. The previous government even quietly accepted that some of their claims were duds, by quietly arranging to keep the copper cable going for 20 years.

I would probably benefit a lot more quickly, and lot cheaper, if someone from Telstra would fix the bare cables covered by a small upturned plastic bucket, attached to the pole with electrical tape, which is the phone line connection to my house. I realise that with fibre to the node, that connection will remain as it is, but it shouldn’t need a squillion dollar project to fix up basic infrastructure.

IP

I’ve been verballed again. None of the quotes mentioned above are attributable to me.

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

.
Which fibre are you talking about?
The one that is ingested as a dietry enhancment or the one that goes in the ground and fails in about 20 years.
Come to think of they both turn into shit.

Rubbish, IP, the NBN is providing infrastructure that is far, far closer to being self-funding than any roads or railways have ever been, and it’s cheap.
Glass will not “fail” in 20 years. We are currently still using copper that started going in the ground almost 100 years ago. Glass is far less prone to the maintenance problems copper gives us, and it will be around far longer.

While you are hot, please tell me about tectonic plate convergence. I mentioned it in an earlier post but no one cared to contradict me when I suggested it was causing island states to sink.

IrishPete said :

Jazz said :

had enough yet you two?

You’re new here, aren’t you?

IP

Nah he’s been lurking in the background pulling a few strings, bit like a marionette manipulator…

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

Rubbish, IP, the NBN is providing infrastructure that is far, far closer to being self-funding than any roads or railways have ever been, and it’s cheap.
Glass will not “fail” in 20 years. We are currently still using copper that started going in the ground almost 100 years ago. Glass is far less prone to the maintenance problems copper gives us, and it will be around far longer.

If it’s self-funding, where’s the 40, 50, 60 billion of taxpayer funds going? Someone should call the police. Or do you mean the non-existent cost benefit analysis shows it will be self-funding at some unknown date in the future when it is finally finished and the debt paid off?

Of course the fibre will lat a long time. But is fibre-optic technology the way of the future, or will it be left behind and replaced with something else? Like those sad microwave towers scattered around rural Australia. Digging a hole and putting a cable in it is not actually rocket science. Not even a fibre-optic cable. They were doing that in the UK when I left in the late 1990s. And every time someone had to dig up a sewer or water main or telephone wire or electricity cable, they seemed to break the fibre-optic cable. (Okay, I made that up, but it sometime happened.)

There’s a lot of heat around the NBN, not much light. The previous government even quietly accepted that some of their claims were duds, by quietly arranging to keep the copper cable going for 20 years.

I would probably benefit a lot more quickly, and lot cheaper, if someone from Telstra would fix the bare cables covered by a small upturned plastic bucket, attached to the pole with electrical tape, which is the phone line connection to my house. I realise that with fibre to the node, that connection will remain as it is, but it shouldn’t need a squillion dollar project to fix up basic infrastructure.

IP

Jazz said :

had enough yet you two?

You’re new here, aren’t you?

IP

dungfungus said :

.
Which fibre are you talking about?
The one that is ingested as a dietry enhancment or the one that goes in the ground and fails in about 20 years.
Come to think of they both turn into shit.

Rubbish, IP, the NBN is providing infrastructure that is far, far closer to being self-funding than any roads or railways have ever been, and it’s cheap.
Glass will not “fail” in 20 years. We are currently still using copper that started going in the ground almost 100 years ago. Glass is far less prone to the maintenance problems copper gives us, and it will be around far longer.

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Sea level rise is not a “computer projection” but a real-world *observation*.

What you personally can or cannot perceive with your naked eye has no bearing on the reality that is measured by the relevant professionals.

We’ve had 20cm sea level rise over the last 150 years, and the rate of sea level rise has now tripled. The next 20cm of sea level rise is likely to take a good deal less than 50 years, and the eventual collapses of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will cause sea level rises measuring in the *metres*.

I note you’ve now backed off your initial denial of sea level rise with a new objection that you can’t perceive what’s happening with your naked eye. (Therefore…what? It’s not important?)
Alexander Litvinenko could give you a clue about the value of assessing something’s potential for harm by the extent to which it can be perceived by the naked eye…..

Re your medication: double the dose immediately.

wow, razor fucking sharp retort right there…

He can’t deal with facts. Instead we have inanities about Shallow Crossing and diversions.

Sea level is rising. The rise is accelerating. But Dungfungus denies this is happening.

Jazz said :

had enough yet you two?

aww, let ’em go – i want my mully! 🙂

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

IrishPete said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Ben_Dover said :

“The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said”

http://tinyurl.com/qebkyu6

Fair enough. Just imagine if we actually *did* screen out a few morons from becoming politicians? Flat-earthers, creationidiots, supporters of a US-style healthcare system, and %$#@wits who want to trash the NBN.

Don’t bring the NBN into it. It’s a government-funded white elephant. If we’re going to have a government-funded white elephant, I’d prefer it was a fast train, not something for online gamers and illegal downloaders to get excited about, nor a second Sydney airport.

the risk with the NBN, as with any high-tech stuff, is that it will be virtually obsolete by the time it is finished or not long after.

IP

Don’t know much about fibre, huh?

I know it doesn’t carry passengers. Not at the speed of light nor any other speed.

Feel free to enlighten me, though I know it’s not your style (throwing rocks is).

IP

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Ben_Dover said :

“The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said”

http://tinyurl.com/qebkyu6

Fair enough. Just imagine if we actually *did* screen out a few morons from becoming politicians? Flat-earthers, creationidiots, supporters of a US-style healthcare system, and %$#@wits who want to trash the NBN.

Don’t bring the NBN into it. It’s a government-funded white elephant. If we’re going to have a government-funded white elephant, I’d prefer it was a fast train, not something for online gamers and illegal downloaders to get excited about, nor a second Sydney airport.

the risk with the NBN, as with any high-tech stuff, is that it will be virtually obsolete by the time it is finished or not long after.

IP

Prepare to be branded stupid, lazy, selfish and ignorant, IP.
Indeed, you are spot on about the NBN.

You also do not seem to know much about fibre either, do you?

Which fibre are you talking about?
The one that is ingested as a dietry enhancment or the one that goes in the ground and fails in about 20 years.
Come to think of they both turn into shit.

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Ben_Dover said :

“The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said”

http://tinyurl.com/qebkyu6

Fair enough. Just imagine if we actually *did* screen out a few morons from becoming politicians? Flat-earthers, creationidiots, supporters of a US-style healthcare system, and %$#@wits who want to trash the NBN.

Don’t bring the NBN into it. It’s a government-funded white elephant. If we’re going to have a government-funded white elephant, I’d prefer it was a fast train, not something for online gamers and illegal downloaders to get excited about, nor a second Sydney airport.

the risk with the NBN, as with any high-tech stuff, is that it will be virtually obsolete by the time it is finished or not long after.

IP

Prepare to be branded stupid, lazy, selfish and ignorant, IP.
Indeed, you are spot on about the NBN.

You also do not seem to know much about fibre either, do you?

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/16/climate-change-deniers-put-up-or-shut-up

“For the moment, however, [deinalists] have a disproportionate influence because they’ve created the illusion that this is a finely balanced discussion where a person can reasonably support either side. They empower a certain amount of stupidity, laziness, selfishness and ignorance in the minds of many, and I hope some of the younger deniers, though few, live to acknowledge responsibility.

I see you despise old people as well. How can a discussion be “finely balanced” when you and your “peers” are so abusive about the opinions of others.
Last time I checked, the realists (you call them deniers) were in the majority.
Unfortunately, you and your mates are slaves to a lot of contemporary crap that you read on the internet.
Why don’t you read some books for a change – that’s where there the facts are – research compiled from years of field study (that means getting off your arse and actually observing something and writng notes with a pen and paper) and no pre-concluded computer projections on how high the sea is going to rise (even so called expert climate scientists can’t agree on that one).
If what you believe in is true how come the causeway of the Clyde River upstream from Nelligen is still called Shallow Crossing?

You really do not get how science works, do you?

IrishPete said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Ben_Dover said :

“The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said”

http://tinyurl.com/qebkyu6

Fair enough. Just imagine if we actually *did* screen out a few morons from becoming politicians? Flat-earthers, creationidiots, supporters of a US-style healthcare system, and %$#@wits who want to trash the NBN.

Don’t bring the NBN into it. It’s a government-funded white elephant. If we’re going to have a government-funded white elephant, I’d prefer it was a fast train, not something for online gamers and illegal downloaders to get excited about, nor a second Sydney airport.

the risk with the NBN, as with any high-tech stuff, is that it will be virtually obsolete by the time it is finished or not long after.

IP

Don’t know much about fibre, huh?

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Mean sea level is increasing, and it is doing so at an accelerating rate. This is the current state of collective human knowledge about our current sea level. To assert that this is not happening is to paint yourself as an ignorant or dishonest loser.

Stop reading Andrew Bolt and his source for disinformation, WUWT, and rely instead on honest professionals:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

So, you can confirm that Fort Dennison is disappearing beneath the waves? I don’t read Andrew Bolt either.

So it’s just a coincidence that your witless denialism sounds like an echo of Bolt’s doltish nonsense. Fair enough.

As for Fort Dennison, I see from your question that you have not even read the information available at the CSIRO link I provided.

If you would like to discuss a particular topic, how about you do us a favour and inform yourself first, thus saving us from having to read your stupid questions?

I fail to see what you are upset about but this is a common denominator with climate alarmists.
If you want to support your opinions derived from taxpayer funded computer projections with links that’s OK with me but I don’t read them anyway.
Your evidence that sea levels are rising fast enough to swamp the world is purely speculation and demonising me as some sort of inferior person doesn’t give any credibilty to you.
My evidence that the naked eye cannot perceive any rise in sea levels is real time and factual.
Just because “thousand of climate scientists and their peers” say it may happen doesn’t mean it will.
Don’t forget that scientists were also the people developed the A bomb, germ warfare and Thalidamide.

Ahhhh, and you now blatantly show your anti science ignorant views.

dungfungus said :

Prepare to be branded stupid, lazy, selfish and ignorant, IP.
Indeed, you are spot on about the NBN.

The trouble with online forums is that they are dominated by people addicted to computers, and I think you therefore get a biased view about the NBN. I get by quite nicely on my 1500/256 connection, ADSL2 would be nice, but fibre, well I can live without it.

Oddly the NBN-supporters often don’t like paying taxes either, but the NBN is costing something in the order of $2000 per man woman and child in Australia. And all that without a decent cost benefit analysis. What’s the opportunity cost – what are giving up or not getting in the future so we can pay for that?

Some even claim it will reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions by facilitating videoconferencing, telemedicine and the like. But you’ll never cure politicians, public servants, doctors and business people of their First and Business class travel, exclusive lounges and frequent flyer points. It’s the closest thing they get to feeling Upper Class. Otherwise there wouldn’t be demand for a second Sydney Airport. And what’s the cost per tonne of CO2 that will not be emitted because of the NBN? I’ll take a guess at “astronomical”.

I await the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

IP

All I’ve got to say is:

If you believe in climate change, you should “Think Global and Drink Local”

If you don’t, drink the local beer anyway seeing it’s good.

Cheers and beers from Zierholz

Ps Bent Spoke will hopefully open soon as well so you will have three choices of local (commercial) brewers to go with!

IrishPete said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Ben_Dover said :

“The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said”

http://tinyurl.com/qebkyu6

Fair enough. Just imagine if we actually *did* screen out a few morons from becoming politicians? Flat-earthers, creationidiots, supporters of a US-style healthcare system, and %$#@wits who want to trash the NBN.

Don’t bring the NBN into it. It’s a government-funded white elephant. If we’re going to have a government-funded white elephant, I’d prefer it was a fast train, not something for online gamers and illegal downloaders to get excited about, nor a second Sydney airport.

the risk with the NBN, as with any high-tech stuff, is that it will be virtually obsolete by the time it is finished or not long after.

IP

Prepare to be branded stupid, lazy, selfish and ignorant, IP.
Indeed, you are spot on about the NBN.

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Mean sea level is increasing, and it is doing so at an accelerating rate. This is the current state of collective human knowledge about our current sea level. To assert that this is not happening is to paint yourself as an ignorant or dishonest loser.

Stop reading Andrew Bolt and his source for disinformation, WUWT, and rely instead on honest professionals:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

So, you can confirm that Fort Dennison is disappearing beneath the waves? I don’t read Andrew Bolt either.

So it’s just a coincidence that your witless denialism sounds like an echo of Bolt’s doltish nonsense. Fair enough.

As for Fort Dennison, I see from your question that you have not even read the information available at the CSIRO link I provided.

If you would like to discuss a particular topic, how about you do us a favour and inform yourself first, thus saving us from having to read your stupid questions?

I fail to see what you are upset about but this is a common denominator with climate alarmists.
If you want to support your opinions derived from taxpayer funded computer projections with links that’s OK with me but I don’t read them anyway.
Your evidence that sea levels are rising fast enough to swamp the world is purely speculation and demonising me as some sort of inferior person doesn’t give any credibilty to you.
My evidence that the naked eye cannot perceive any rise in sea levels is real time and factual.
Just because “thousand of climate scientists and their peers” say it may happen doesn’t mean it will.
Don’t forget that scientists were also the people developed the A bomb, germ warfare and Thalidamide.

Sea level rise is not a “computer projection” but a real-world *observation*.

What you personally can or cannot perceive with your naked eye has no bearing on the reality that is measured by the relevant professionals.

We’ve had 20cm sea level rise over the last 150 years, and the rate of sea level rise has now tripled. The next 20cm of sea level rise is likely to take a good deal less than 50 years, and the eventual collapses of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will cause sea level rises measuring in the *metres*.

I note you’ve now backed off your initial denial of sea level rise with a new objection that you can’t perceive what’s happening with your naked eye. (Therefore…what? It’s not important?)
Alexander Litvinenko could give you a clue about the value of assessing something’s potential for harm by the extent to which it can be perceived by the naked eye…..

Re your medication: double the dose immediately.

wow, razor fucking sharp retort right there…

astrojax said :

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/16/climate-change-deniers-put-up-or-shut-up

“For the moment, however, [deinalists] have a disproportionate influence because they’ve created the illusion that this is a finely balanced discussion where a person can reasonably support either side. They empower a certain amount of stupidity, laziness, selfishness and ignorance in the minds of many, and I hope some of the younger deniers, though few, live to acknowledge responsibility.

I see you despise old people as well. How can a discussion be “finely balanced” when you and your “peers” are so abusive about the opinions of others.
Last time I checked, the realists (you call them deniers) were in the majority.
Unfortunately, you and your mates are slaves to a lot of contemporary crap that you read on the internet.
Why don’t you read some books for a change – that’s where there the facts are – research compiled from years of field study (that means getting off your arse and actually observing something and writng notes with a pen and paper) and no pre-concluded computer projections on how high the sea is going to rise (even so called expert climate scientists can’t agree on that one).
If what you believe in is true how come the causeway of the Clyde River upstream from Nelligen is still called Shallow Crossing?

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Mean sea level is increasing, and it is doing so at an accelerating rate. This is the current state of collective human knowledge about our current sea level. To assert that this is not happening is to paint yourself as an ignorant or dishonest loser.

Stop reading Andrew Bolt and his source for disinformation, WUWT, and rely instead on honest professionals:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

So, you can confirm that Fort Dennison is disappearing beneath the waves? I don’t read Andrew Bolt either.

So it’s just a coincidence that your witless denialism sounds like an echo of Bolt’s doltish nonsense. Fair enough.

As for Fort Dennison, I see from your question that you have not even read the information available at the CSIRO link I provided.

If you would like to discuss a particular topic, how about you do us a favour and inform yourself first, thus saving us from having to read your stupid questions?

I fail to see what you are upset about but this is a common denominator with climate alarmists.
If you want to support your opinions derived from taxpayer funded computer projections with links that’s OK with me but I don’t read them anyway.
Your evidence that sea levels are rising fast enough to swamp the world is purely speculation and demonising me as some sort of inferior person doesn’t give any credibilty to you.
My evidence that the naked eye cannot perceive any rise in sea levels is real time and factual.
Just because “thousand of climate scientists and their peers” say it may happen doesn’t mean it will.
Don’t forget that scientists were also the people developed the A bomb, germ warfare and Thalidamide.

Sea level rise is not a “computer projection” but a real-world *observation*.

What you personally can or cannot perceive with your naked eye has no bearing on the reality that is measured by the relevant professionals.

We’ve had 20cm sea level rise over the last 150 years, and the rate of sea level rise has now tripled. The next 20cm of sea level rise is likely to take a good deal less than 50 years, and the eventual collapses of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will cause sea level rises measuring in the *metres*.

I note you’ve now backed off your initial denial of sea level rise with a new objection that you can’t perceive what’s happening with your naked eye. (Therefore…what? It’s not important?)
Alexander Litvinenko could give you a clue about the value of assessing something’s potential for harm by the extent to which it can be perceived by the naked eye…..

Re your medication: double the dose immediately.

Nylex_Clock said :

Ben_Dover said :

“The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said”

http://tinyurl.com/qebkyu6

Fair enough. Just imagine if we actually *did* screen out a few morons from becoming politicians? Flat-earthers, creationidiots, supporters of a US-style healthcare system, and %$#@wits who want to trash the NBN.

Don’t bring the NBN into it. It’s a government-funded white elephant. If we’re going to have a government-funded white elephant, I’d prefer it was a fast train, not something for online gamers and illegal downloaders to get excited about, nor a second Sydney airport.

the risk with the NBN, as with any high-tech stuff, is that it will be virtually obsolete by the time it is finished or not long after.

IP

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/16/climate-change-deniers-put-up-or-shut-up

“For the moment, however, [deinalists] have a disproportionate influence because they’ve created the illusion that this is a finely balanced discussion where a person can reasonably support either side. They empower a certain amount of stupidity, laziness, selfishness and ignorance in the minds of many, and I hope some of the younger deniers, though few, live to acknowledge responsibility.

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Ben_Dover said :

“The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said”

http://tinyurl.com/qebkyu6

Fair enough. Just imagine if we actually *did* screen out a few morons from becoming politicians? Flat-earthers, creationidiots, supporters of a US-style healthcare system, and %$#@wits who want to trash the NBN.

You are starting to sound like a politician yourself.
Have you taken your grumpy pills this morning?

I believe in evidence-based decisionmaking. This is sadly missing in politics right now, witness the “climate change is crap”, NBN-shredding fruitloops cuirrently in charge.

Yes, I am grumpy.

Nylex_Clock said :

Ben_Dover said :

“The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said”

http://tinyurl.com/qebkyu6

Fair enough. Just imagine if we actually *did* screen out a few morons from becoming politicians? Flat-earthers, creationidiots, supporters of a US-style healthcare system, and %$#@wits who want to trash the NBN.

You are starting to sound like a politician yourself.
Have you taken your grumpy pills this morning?

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Mean sea level is increasing, and it is doing so at an accelerating rate. This is the current state of collective human knowledge about our current sea level. To assert that this is not happening is to paint yourself as an ignorant or dishonest loser.

Stop reading Andrew Bolt and his source for disinformation, WUWT, and rely instead on honest professionals:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

So, you can confirm that Fort Dennison is disappearing beneath the waves? I don’t read Andrew Bolt either.

So it’s just a coincidence that your witless denialism sounds like an echo of Bolt’s doltish nonsense. Fair enough.

As for Fort Dennison, I see from your question that you have not even read the information available at the CSIRO link I provided.

If you would like to discuss a particular topic, how about you do us a favour and inform yourself first, thus saving us from having to read your stupid questions?

I fail to see what you are upset about but this is a common denominator with climate alarmists.
If you want to support your opinions derived from taxpayer funded computer projections with links that’s OK with me but I don’t read them anyway.
Your evidence that sea levels are rising fast enough to swamp the world is purely speculation and demonising me as some sort of inferior person doesn’t give any credibilty to you.
My evidence that the naked eye cannot perceive any rise in sea levels is real time and factual.
Just because “thousand of climate scientists and their peers” say it may happen doesn’t mean it will.
Don’t forget that scientists were also the people developed the A bomb, germ warfare and Thalidamide.

Sea level rise is not a “computer projection” but a real-world *observation*.

What you personally can or cannot perceive with your naked eye has no bearing on the reality that is measured by the relevant professionals.

We’ve had 20cm sea level rise over the last 150 years, and the rate of sea level rise has now tripled. The next 20cm of sea level rise is likely to take a good deal less than 50 years, and the eventual collapses of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will cause sea level rises measuring in the *metres*.

I note you’ve now backed off your initial denial of sea level rise with a new objection that you can’t perceive what’s happening with your naked eye. (Therefore…what? It’s not important?)
Alexander Litvinenko could give you a clue about the value of assessing something’s potential for harm by the extent to which it can be perceived by the naked eye…..

PantsMan said :

Don’t want to hear about “the science.”

Don’t care about “climate debt.”

The two go hand-in-hand: only a spectacular level of ignorance can explain climate change denialism.

Ben_Dover said :

“The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said”

http://tinyurl.com/qebkyu6

Fair enough. Just imagine if we actually *did* screen out a few morons from becoming politicians? Flat-earthers, creationidiots, supporters of a US-style healthcare system, and %$#@wits who want to trash the NBN.

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Mean sea level is increasing, and it is doing so at an accelerating rate. This is the current state of collective human knowledge about our current sea level. To assert that this is not happening is to paint yourself as an ignorant or dishonest loser.

Stop reading Andrew Bolt and his source for disinformation, WUWT, and rely instead on honest professionals:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

So, you can confirm that Fort Dennison is disappearing beneath the waves? I don’t read Andrew Bolt either.

So it’s just a coincidence that your witless denialism sounds like an echo of Bolt’s doltish nonsense. Fair enough.

As for Fort Dennison, I see from your question that you have not even read the information available at the CSIRO link I provided.

If you would like to discuss a particular topic, how about you do us a favour and inform yourself first, thus saving us from having to read your stupid questions?

I fail to see what you are upset about but this is a common denominator with climate alarmists.
If you want to support your opinions derived from taxpayer funded computer projections with links that’s OK with me but I don’t read them anyway.
Your evidence that sea levels are rising fast enough to swamp the world is purely speculation and demonising me as some sort of inferior person doesn’t give any credibilty to you.
My evidence that the naked eye cannot perceive any rise in sea levels is real time and factual.
Just because “thousand of climate scientists and their peers” say it may happen doesn’t mean it will.
Don’t forget that scientists were also the people developed the A bomb, germ warfare and Thalidamide.

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Mean sea level is increasing, and it is doing so at an accelerating rate. This is the current state of collective human knowledge about our current sea level. To assert that this is not happening is to paint yourself as an ignorant or dishonest loser.

Stop reading Andrew Bolt and his source for disinformation, WUWT, and rely instead on honest professionals:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

So, you can confirm that Fort Dennison is disappearing beneath the waves? I don’t read Andrew Bolt either.

So it’s just a coincidence that your witless denialism sounds like an echo of Bolt’s doltish nonsense. Fair enough.

As for Fort Dennison, I see from your question that you have not even read the information available at the CSIRO link I provided.

If you would like to discuss a particular topic, how about you do us a favour and inform yourself first, thus saving us from having to read your stupid questions?

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

You know, you can get through life easier if you ignore doomsday theories; even if man made climate change is proven to be valid there is nothing you or I can do about it and neither of us will be here after the earth implodes to say “I was right”.

Great quoting folks. I think I’ve fixed it now.

There IS something you can do about it. It’s just you are too selfish or lazy to do so.

IP

I am neither selfish or lazy and I have retro fitted my house with double glazing and roof bats, installed heat pump water heater and heating and cooling. I can’t have solar power because my roof is in shadow most of the winter months. My car is a 2.0 litre efficient petrol (diesel is not suitable for town driving and electric car technology is not mature). I recycle whatever I can and I am fanatical about waste and people leaving on electric lights (I have installed sensors all over my house now and I am converting to LED). I have a green waste composter at home etc., use mulch to save water.
What else do you suggest I do, only shower once a year?

Can you post a screen shot of the receipts please?

Do you really wan’t to be made to look the fool that you are?
I am happy to submit the receipts to the moderator and he/she can then promulgate whether I am a liar or you are a fool.
Moderator, you know where to contact me.

The thing about ignorants, is rather than educate them selves, they generally lie about things to help their bad arguments.

And your point is?

If you have to ask…

Mysteryman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

You know, you can get through life easier if you ignore doomsday theories; even if man made climate change is proven to be valid there is nothing you or I can do about it and neither of us will be here after the earth implodes to say “I was right”.

Great quoting folks. I think I’ve fixed it now.

There IS something you can do about it. It’s just you are too selfish or lazy to do so.

IP

I am neither selfish or lazy and I have retro fitted my house with double glazing and roof bats, installed heat pump water heater and heating and cooling. I can’t have solar power because my roof is in shadow most of the winter months. My car is a 2.0 litre efficient petrol (diesel is not suitable for town driving and electric car technology is not mature). I recycle whatever I can and I am fanatical about waste and people leaving on electric lights (I have installed sensors all over my house now and I am converting to LED). I have a green waste composter at home etc., use mulch to save water.
What else do you suggest I do, only shower once a year?

Can you post a screen shot of the receipts please?

Do you really wan’t to be made to look the fool that you are?
I am happy to submit the receipts to the moderator and he/she can then promulgate whether I am a liar or you are a fool.
Moderator, you know where to contact me.

The thing about ignorants, is rather than educate them selves, they generally lie about things to help their bad arguments.

I hope to God you aren’t as much of an idiot as you appear to be, CGN. I’m yet to see a single intelligent, or even semi-intelligent post from you in the time you’ve been trolling here. And yes, that’s exactly what you do. If it’s not some barely literate “source” response, it’s you being an internet tough guy or making some foolish claim about something you know nothing about.

Do everyone a favour and limit your posts to 1 every few days. At least then if the quality of your “contributions” doesn’t improve, the quantity of them will.

Can you post a screenshot of these slanderous allegations please?

dungfungus said :

Thanks IP – pity other people on this blog can’t accept my integrity.
Re diesel cars, there are major problems with Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) fitted to any diesel vehicle that is not used for regular long trips. I know several people who have bought diesels to run the kids to school, go to the shops etc. daily and the short running involved does not activate the function that burns off the soot (particulates) that collect in the filter. Over a short period of time the filter clogs completely and this can destroys the engine. Several individuals are taking legal action against the makes and dealers involved. The manufacturers have a huge problem on their hands.
Just Google “problems with DPF’s” or some Forums that deal specifically with the subject.

True, but diesel particulates are mainly air quality issue, rather than a Greenhouse Gas issue (I know that’s not your point, but read on). Not an issue for me anyway, as my car is mostly used on one country road at high speed (well, as high or thereabouts as is permitted in Oz).

I get quite irritated with people (not accusing you of this, it’s a general rant aimed more at my Fellow Travellers) who lump all environmental issues in together. Water shortages for example, are a localised issue in Australia and other places – there’s no shortage of water worldwide, climate change will increase the supply (through ice-melt) notwithstanding increased salination (not sure about that). Reducing water use isn’t really something that’s going to prevent climate change (reducing hot water ruse will, but cold water will only get some greenhouse gas savings from pumping and treatment). Conveersely, those recommending nuclear power are, in my opinion, replacing one environmental issue (climate change) with another (mainly WTF to do with the nuclear waste), as well as the non-climate related issue of nuclear weapons proliferation.

As another example, burning wood for heat is really quite environmentally friendly, but isn’t great for local air quality. And back to diesel cars. The scenario you describe is a bit like the plug-in hybrid cars that MUST run through a tank of petrol every year, and I think are programmed to do so (not sure how that works – hopefully they don’t start themselves in the garage…)!

IP

PantsMan said :

Even on the Riot Act, climate change is now basically ridiculed as socialist bullsh#t.

It’s over.

Don’t want to hear about “the science.”

Don’t care about “climate debt.”

You can all go and take your socalist wet dreams and f%ck off.

You can call it ‘socialism’ or you can call it Beryll, but I don’t think the label is going to change the situation.

dungfungus said :

So, you can confirm that Fort Dennison is disappearing beneath the waves?

Yep, it is: http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/196.php

A century average of around 1mm per year; BUT with a recent rate (since mid 1990s) of around 3mm per year.

Very comparable to the global averages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise and climate since predictions.

Next…

“The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said”

http://tinyurl.com/qebkyu6

RadioVK said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

For the record there were 10 days in January where it was 35+ degrees and we’ve already had 7 days in February of 35+ degrees. That has got to be an all time record surely?

It may be a record for the site where the readings were recorded but if the site has only been there a few years (Canberra Airport for example) there is no way it is a record for Canberra generally.
There were lots of discussions in the Canberra Times about this subject recently and readings taken at Yarralumla and Acton many years ago when they were the “official” sites indicate that our recent hot spell has been just that.

According to Weatherzone Canberra Airport weather records date back to 1939 so it’s more than a few years. The only other readily available info online is Tuggers which dates back to 1996. While the average temps for Tuggers are marginally less than Canberra Airport unless someone can provide info to the contrary the stint of abnormally hot weather we’ve had recently is unprecedented.

How long has the BOM been recording weather data ar Canberra Airport? They used to have their data collection equipment on the top of an office building in Moore Street Canberra City.
I may be wrong but I thought BOM were the official recorders of weather records.
Who the hell is Weatherzone?

This’ll help you out:

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/about/about.jsp

Normally I would cite BOM but I prefer weatherzone’s records format coz it’s much more user friendly.

That’s Weatherzone, “established 1998”. Yeah, right.

As others have pointed out, the records of meteorological observations are available to anyone, including Weatherzone, through the BoM website.

The fact that Weatherzone was established in 1998 is completely irrelevant. It’s not like they, or any other weather website (BoM excluded, obviously) make their own observations. They compile their information from publicly available sources generally accessible to everyone.

The BoM website doesn’t have all met. records though. Some very old records are still in books and journals that have not been uploaded to the internet.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

You know, you can get through life easier if you ignore doomsday theories; even if man made climate change is proven to be valid there is nothing you or I can do about it and neither of us will be here after the earth implodes to say “I was right”.

Great quoting folks. I think I’ve fixed it now.

There IS something you can do about it. It’s just you are too selfish or lazy to do so.

IP

I am neither selfish or lazy and I have retro fitted my house with double glazing and roof bats, installed heat pump water heater and heating and cooling. I can’t have solar power because my roof is in shadow most of the winter months. My car is a 2.0 litre efficient petrol (diesel is not suitable for town driving and electric car technology is not mature). I recycle whatever I can and I am fanatical about waste and people leaving on electric lights (I have installed sensors all over my house now and I am converting to LED). I have a green waste composter at home etc., use mulch to save water.
What else do you suggest I do, only shower once a year?

Can you post a screen shot of the receipts please?

Do you really wan’t to be made to look the fool that you are?
I am happy to submit the receipts to the moderator and he/she can then promulgate whether I am a liar or you are a fool.
Moderator, you know where to contact me.

The thing about ignorants, is rather than educate them selves, they generally lie about things to help their bad arguments.

And your point is?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

You know, you can get through life easier if you ignore doomsday theories; even if man made climate change is proven to be valid there is nothing you or I can do about it and neither of us will be here after the earth implodes to say “I was right”.

Great quoting folks. I think I’ve fixed it now.

There IS something you can do about it. It’s just you are too selfish or lazy to do so.

IP

I am neither selfish or lazy and I have retro fitted my house with double glazing and roof bats, installed heat pump water heater and heating and cooling. I can’t have solar power because my roof is in shadow most of the winter months. My car is a 2.0 litre efficient petrol (diesel is not suitable for town driving and electric car technology is not mature). I recycle whatever I can and I am fanatical about waste and people leaving on electric lights (I have installed sensors all over my house now and I am converting to LED). I have a green waste composter at home etc., use mulch to save water.
What else do you suggest I do, only shower once a year?

Can you post a screen shot of the receipts please?

Do you really wan’t to be made to look the fool that you are?
I am happy to submit the receipts to the moderator and he/she can then promulgate whether I am a liar or you are a fool.
Moderator, you know where to contact me.

The thing about ignorants, is rather than educate them selves, they generally lie about things to help their bad arguments.

I hope to God you aren’t as much of an idiot as you appear to be, CGN. I’m yet to see a single intelligent, or even semi-intelligent post from you in the time you’ve been trolling here. And yes, that’s exactly what you do. If it’s not some barely literate “source” response, it’s you being an internet tough guy or making some foolish claim about something you know nothing about.

Do everyone a favour and limit your posts to 1 every few days. At least then if the quality of your “contributions” doesn’t improve, the quantity of them will.

dungfungus said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

You know, you can get through life easier if you ignore doomsday theories; even if man made climate change is proven to be valid there is nothing you or I can do about it and neither of us will be here after the earth implodes to say “I was right”.

Great quoting folks. I think I’ve fixed it now.

There IS something you can do about it. It’s just you are too selfish or lazy to do so.

IP

I am neither selfish or lazy and I have retro fitted my house with double glazing and roof bats, installed heat pump water heater and heating and cooling. I can’t have solar power because my roof is in shadow most of the winter months. My car is a 2.0 litre efficient petrol (diesel is not suitable for town driving and electric car technology is not mature). I recycle whatever I can and I am fanatical about waste and people leaving on electric lights (I have installed sensors all over my house now and I am converting to LED). I have a green waste composter at home etc., use mulch to save water.
What else do you suggest I do, only shower once a year?

Can you post a screen shot of the receipts please?

Do you really wan’t to be made to look the fool that you are?
I am happy to submit the receipts to the moderator and he/she can then promulgate whether I am a liar or you are a fool.
Moderator, you know where to contact me.

The thing about ignorants, is rather than educate them selves, they generally lie about things to help their bad arguments.

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

For the record there were 10 days in January where it was 35+ degrees and we’ve already had 7 days in February of 35+ degrees. That has got to be an all time record surely?

It may be a record for the site where the readings were recorded but if the site has only been there a few years (Canberra Airport for example) there is no way it is a record for Canberra generally.
There were lots of discussions in the Canberra Times about this subject recently and readings taken at Yarralumla and Acton many years ago when they were the “official” sites indicate that our recent hot spell has been just that.

According to Weatherzone Canberra Airport weather records date back to 1939 so it’s more than a few years. The only other readily available info online is Tuggers which dates back to 1996. While the average temps for Tuggers are marginally less than Canberra Airport unless someone can provide info to the contrary the stint of abnormally hot weather we’ve had recently is unprecedented.

How long has the BOM been recording weather data ar Canberra Airport? They used to have their data collection equipment on the top of an office building in Moore Street Canberra City.
I may be wrong but I thought BOM were the official recorders of weather records.
Who the hell is Weatherzone?

This’ll help you out:

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/about/about.jsp

Normally I would cite BOM but I prefer weatherzone’s records format coz it’s much more user friendly.

That’s Weatherzone, “established 1998”. Yeah, right.

As others have pointed out, the records of meteorological observations are available to anyone, including Weatherzone, through the BoM website.

The fact that Weatherzone was established in 1998 is completely irrelevant. It’s not like they, or any other weather website (BoM excluded, obviously) make their own observations. They compile their information from publicly available sources generally accessible to everyone.

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

For the record there were 10 days in January where it was 35+ degrees and we’ve already had 7 days in February of 35+ degrees. That has got to be an all time record surely?

It may be a record for the site where the readings were recorded but if the site has only been there a few years (Canberra Airport for example) there is no way it is a record for Canberra generally.
There were lots of discussions in the Canberra Times about this subject recently and readings taken at Yarralumla and Acton many years ago when they were the “official” sites indicate that our recent hot spell has been just that.

According to Weatherzone Canberra Airport weather records date back to 1939 so it’s more than a few years. The only other readily available info online is Tuggers which dates back to 1996. While the average temps for Tuggers are marginally less than Canberra Airport unless someone can provide info to the contrary the stint of abnormally hot weather we’ve had recently is unprecedented.

How long has the BOM been recording weather data ar Canberra Airport? They used to have their data collection equipment on the top of an office building in Moore Street Canberra City.
I may be wrong but I thought BOM were the official recorders of weather records.
Who the hell is Weatherzone?

This’ll help you out:

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/about/about.jsp

Normally I would cite BOM but I prefer weatherzone’s records format coz it’s much more user friendly.

That’s Weatherzone, “established 1998”. Yeah, right.

Even on the Riot Act, climate change is now basically ridiculed as socialist bullsh#t.

It’s over.

Don’t want to hear about “the science.”

Don’t care about “climate debt.”

You can all go and take your socalist wet dreams and f%ck off.

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

Meanwhile, the ocean level is not going up or down.

I assumed they meant they don’t believe in tides either.

IP

You know we are talking about the mean level so why make smart arse comments?

Mean sea level is increasing, and it is doing so at an accelerating rate. This is the current state of collective human knowledge about our current sea level. To assert that this is not happening is to paint yourself as an ignorant or dishonest loser.

Stop reading Andrew Bolt and his source for disinformation, WUWT, and rely instead on honest professionals:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

So, you can confirm that Fort Dennison is disappearing beneath the waves? I don’t read Andrew Bolt either.

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

You know, you can get through life easier if you ignore doomsday theories; even if man made climate change is proven to be valid there is nothing you or I can do about it and neither of us will be here after the earth implodes to say “I was right”.

Great quoting folks. I think I’ve fixed it now.

There IS something you can do about it. It’s just you are too selfish or lazy to do so.

IP

I am neither selfish or lazy and I have retro fitted my house with double glazing and roof bats, installed heat pump water heater and heating and cooling. I can’t have solar power because my roof is in shadow most of the winter months. My car is a 2.0 litre efficient petrol (diesel is not suitable for town driving and electric car technology is not mature). I recycle whatever I can and I am fanatical about waste and people leaving on electric lights (I have installed sensors all over my house now and I am converting to LED). I have a green waste composter at home etc., use mulch to save water.
What else do you suggest I do, only shower once a year?

Good for you, and I mean that sincerely.

But it is inconsistent with your earlier comment that “there is nothing that you or I can do about it”.

You might be surprised how well a diesel car can do in town – the low down torque is very good for fuel consumption. I’d recommend a large-ish capacity engine – mine is 1.9, but is still needs a bit of revs because of the twin cam and turbocharger. (2009 Astra CDTI manual.)

IP

Thanks IP – pity other people on this blog can’t accept my integrity.
Re diesel cars, there are major problems with Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) fitted to any diesel vehicle that is not used for regular long trips. I know several people who have bought diesels to run the kids to school, go to the shops etc. daily and the short running involved does not activate the function that burns off the soot (particulates) that collect in the filter. Over a short period of time the filter clogs completely and this can destroys the engine. Several individuals are taking legal action against the makes and dealers involved. The manufacturers have a huge problem on their hands.
Just Google “problems with DPF’s” or some Forums that deal specifically with the subject.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

You know, you can get through life easier if you ignore doomsday theories; even if man made climate change is proven to be valid there is nothing you or I can do about it and neither of us will be here after the earth implodes to say “I was right”.

Great quoting folks. I think I’ve fixed it now.

There IS something you can do about it. It’s just you are too selfish or lazy to do so.

IP

I am neither selfish or lazy and I have retro fitted my house with double glazing and roof bats, installed heat pump water heater and heating and cooling. I can’t have solar power because my roof is in shadow most of the winter months. My car is a 2.0 litre efficient petrol (diesel is not suitable for town driving and electric car technology is not mature). I recycle whatever I can and I am fanatical about waste and people leaving on electric lights (I have installed sensors all over my house now and I am converting to LED). I have a green waste composter at home etc., use mulch to save water.
What else do you suggest I do, only shower once a year?

Can you post a screen shot of the receipts please?

Do you really wan’t to be made to look the fool that you are?
I am happy to submit the receipts to the moderator and he/she can then promulgate whether I am a liar or you are a fool.
Moderator, you know where to contact me.

I have a question for anyone who isn’t “getting” the whole global warming thing.

Simply this: what do you make of ocean acidification?

The reason I ask is:

-It’s not hard to understand how that works.
-It has very far reaching effects for us all. (Not as much as climate overall but still severe far ranging consequences for all).
-It’s not hard to measure and there seems no major movement arguing against it.
-It’s very “now” (as is climate change but let’s move along)…

and:

-It’s driven by your friend odourless colourless mr co2.

So… reason enough to act? What do you make of ocean acidification?

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

You know, you can get through life easier if you ignore doomsday theories; even if man made climate change is proven to be valid there is nothing you or I can do about it and neither of us will be here after the earth implodes to say “I was right”.

Great quoting folks. I think I’ve fixed it now.

There IS something you can do about it. It’s just you are too selfish or lazy to do so.

IP

I am neither selfish or lazy and I have retro fitted my house with double glazing and roof bats, installed heat pump water heater and heating and cooling. I can’t have solar power because my roof is in shadow most of the winter months. My car is a 2.0 litre efficient petrol (diesel is not suitable for town driving and electric car technology is not mature). I recycle whatever I can and I am fanatical about waste and people leaving on electric lights (I have installed sensors all over my house now and I am converting to LED). I have a green waste composter at home etc., use mulch to save water.
What else do you suggest I do, only shower once a year?

Good for you, and I mean that sincerely.

But it is inconsistent with your earlier comment that “there is nothing that you or I can do about it”.

You might be surprised how well a diesel car can do in town – the low down torque is very good for fuel consumption. I’d recommend a large-ish capacity engine – mine is 1.9, but is still needs a bit of revs because of the twin cam and turbocharger. (2009 Astra CDTI manual.)

IP

Good for you +1. Good for your pocket too! Can’t argue with that much.

gazket said :

MORE COMMIE BULLSHIT

Well, that’s all the facts I need, gazket just proved that CLIMATE CHANGE IS INDEED CRAP!

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

Meanwhile, the ocean level is not going up or down.

I assumed they meant they don’t believe in tides either.

IP

You know we are talking about the mean level so why make smart arse comments?

For smart arse comments see almost every post by yourself, Sir. Why is it OK for you and not anyone else?

IP

The ocean levels are rising. It’s measured. There. Done.

(How much in the future? Well that’s up to how much ice (overland ice) melts, and the timing / domino trigger points / albedo feedback / list of things we really shouldn’t poke a stick at, involved).

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

Meanwhile, the ocean level is not going up or down.

I assumed they meant they don’t believe in tides either.

IP

You know we are talking about the mean level so why make smart arse comments?

Mean sea level is increasing, and it is doing so at an accelerating rate. This is the current state of collective human knowledge about our current sea level. To assert that this is not happening is to paint yourself as an ignorant or dishonest loser.

Stop reading Andrew Bolt and his source for disinformation, WUWT, and rely instead on honest professionals:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

dungfungus said :

It may be a record for the site where the readings were recorded but if the site has only been there a few years (Canberra Airport for example) there is no way it is a record for Canberra generally.

There are two sets of records for Canberra airport. One set runs 1939-2005. The next set runs 2005-current. The weather station had to be moved in 2005 after new buildings at the airport were too close to the existing weather station and would have interfered with equipment.

All of this data (and shedloads more from around Australia) can be retrieved by any member of the public by visiting the BoM website. Records from before ~1910 (or thereabouts) are not really reliable. The methods for collecting data had note been standardised, so reliable comparisons of data cannot be made with much of the early data.

gazket said :

MORE COMMIE BULLSHIT

ahh, such insightfulness…

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

For the record there were 10 days in January where it was 35+ degrees and we’ve already had 7 days in February of 35+ degrees. That has got to be an all time record surely?

It may be a record for the site where the readings were recorded but if the site has only been there a few years (Canberra Airport for example) there is no way it is a record for Canberra generally.
There were lots of discussions in the Canberra Times about this subject recently and readings taken at Yarralumla and Acton many years ago when they were the “official” sites indicate that our recent hot spell has been just that.

According to Weatherzone Canberra Airport weather records date back to 1939 so it’s more than a few years. The only other readily available info online is Tuggers which dates back to 1996. While the average temps for Tuggers are marginally less than Canberra Airport unless someone can provide info to the contrary the stint of abnormally hot weather we’ve had recently is unprecedented.

How long has the BOM been recording weather data ar Canberra Airport? They used to have their data collection equipment on the top of an office building in Moore Street Canberra City.
I may be wrong but I thought BOM were the official recorders of weather records.
Who the hell is Weatherzone?

RAAF Fairbairn first had RAAF squadrons based there in 1939. At that point the RAAF would have been making daily meteorological observations. I don’t know if this would have been the responsibility of BoM or the RAAF though.

Generally, anywhere there’s a controlled airfield, and at many smaller ones, there will be a BoM observation site (automated or manned).

MORE COMMIE BULLSHIT

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

You know, you can get through life easier if you ignore doomsday theories; even if man made climate change is proven to be valid there is nothing you or I can do about it and neither of us will be here after the earth implodes to say “I was right”.

Great quoting folks. I think I’ve fixed it now.

There IS something you can do about it. It’s just you are too selfish or lazy to do so.

IP

I am neither selfish or lazy and I have retro fitted my house with double glazing and roof bats, installed heat pump water heater and heating and cooling. I can’t have solar power because my roof is in shadow most of the winter months. My car is a 2.0 litre efficient petrol (diesel is not suitable for town driving and electric car technology is not mature). I recycle whatever I can and I am fanatical about waste and people leaving on electric lights (I have installed sensors all over my house now and I am converting to LED). I have a green waste composter at home etc., use mulch to save water.
What else do you suggest I do, only shower once a year?

Good for you, and I mean that sincerely.

But it is inconsistent with your earlier comment that “there is nothing that you or I can do about it”.

You might be surprised how well a diesel car can do in town – the low down torque is very good for fuel consumption. I’d recommend a large-ish capacity engine – mine is 1.9, but is still needs a bit of revs because of the twin cam and turbocharger. (2009 Astra CDTI manual.)

IP

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

Meanwhile, the ocean level is not going up or down.

I assumed they meant they don’t believe in tides either.

IP

You know we are talking about the mean level so why make smart arse comments?

For smart arse comments see almost every post by yourself, Sir. Why is it OK for you and not anyone else?

IP

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

You know, you can get through life easier if you ignore doomsday theories; even if man made climate change is proven to be valid there is nothing you or I can do about it and neither of us will be here after the earth implodes to say “I was right”.

Great quoting folks. I think I’ve fixed it now.

There IS something you can do about it. It’s just you are too selfish or lazy to do so.

IP

I am neither selfish or lazy and I have retro fitted my house with double glazing and roof bats, installed heat pump water heater and heating and cooling. I can’t have solar power because my roof is in shadow most of the winter months. My car is a 2.0 litre efficient petrol (diesel is not suitable for town driving and electric car technology is not mature). I recycle whatever I can and I am fanatical about waste and people leaving on electric lights (I have installed sensors all over my house now and I am converting to LED). I have a green waste composter at home etc., use mulch to save water.
What else do you suggest I do, only shower once a year?

Can you post a screen shot of the receipts please?

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

For the record there were 10 days in January where it was 35+ degrees and we’ve already had 7 days in February of 35+ degrees. That has got to be an all time record surely?

It may be a record for the site where the readings were recorded but if the site has only been there a few years (Canberra Airport for example) there is no way it is a record for Canberra generally.
There were lots of discussions in the Canberra Times about this subject recently and readings taken at Yarralumla and Acton many years ago when they were the “official” sites indicate that our recent hot spell has been just that.

According to Weatherzone Canberra Airport weather records date back to 1939 so it’s more than a few years. The only other readily available info online is Tuggers which dates back to 1996. While the average temps for Tuggers are marginally less than Canberra Airport unless someone can provide info to the contrary the stint of abnormally hot weather we’ve had recently is unprecedented.

How long has the BOM been recording weather data ar Canberra Airport? They used to have their data collection equipment on the top of an office building in Moore Street Canberra City.
I may be wrong but I thought BOM were the official recorders of weather records.
Who the hell is Weatherzone?

This’ll help you out:

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/about/about.jsp

Normally I would cite BOM but I prefer weatherzone’s records format coz it’s much more user friendly.

Antagonist said :

astrojax said :

that’s not what science asserts – now, who do i believe, peer reviewed scientists or an anonymous antagonist on a website..?

I will thank you not to drag me into your childish arguments.

oops. sorry sir. beg pardon. sir

who are you, anyway? 😉

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

You know, you can get through life easier if you ignore doomsday theories; even if man made climate change is proven to be valid there is nothing you or I can do about it and neither of us will be here after the earth implodes to say “I was right”.

Great quoting folks. I think I’ve fixed it now.

There IS something you can do about it. It’s just you are too selfish or lazy to do so.

IP

I am neither selfish or lazy and I have retro fitted my house with double glazing and roof bats, installed heat pump water heater and heating and cooling. I can’t have solar power because my roof is in shadow most of the winter months. My car is a 2.0 litre efficient petrol (diesel is not suitable for town driving and electric car technology is not mature). I recycle whatever I can and I am fanatical about waste and people leaving on electric lights (I have installed sensors all over my house now and I am converting to LED). I have a green waste composter at home etc., use mulch to save water.
What else do you suggest I do, only shower once a year?

bigfeet said :

Pork Hunt said :

Will that help us get rid of Mr Rabbit’s awful government? ..

I might agree with you, or I might not. But one thing I have always thought is that the stupid name calling such as Rabbit, Juliar, Krudd, Mad Monk, O’Bummer, The Rodent (which I believe was a popular online name for Howard) completely detract from whatever point the poster is trying to make.

I usually switch off once someone resorts to that, it is fairly obvious they have nothing of substance to add to the discussion. No matter whether I agree with their opinion or not.

Id plus one that. When did we decide competitive name calling equalled political debate?

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

For the record there were 10 days in January where it was 35+ degrees and we’ve already had 7 days in February of 35+ degrees. That has got to be an all time record surely?

It may be a record for the site where the readings were recorded but if the site has only been there a few years (Canberra Airport for example) there is no way it is a record for Canberra generally.
There were lots of discussions in the Canberra Times about this subject recently and readings taken at Yarralumla and Acton many years ago when they were the “official” sites indicate that our recent hot spell has been just that.

According to Weatherzone Canberra Airport weather records date back to 1939 so it’s more than a few years. The only other readily available info online is Tuggers which dates back to 1996. While the average temps for Tuggers are marginally less than Canberra Airport unless someone can provide info to the contrary the stint of abnormally hot weather we’ve had recently is unprecedented.

How long has the BOM been recording weather data ar Canberra Airport? They used to have their data collection equipment on the top of an office building in Moore Street Canberra City.
I may be wrong but I thought BOM were the official recorders of weather records.
Who the hell is Weatherzone?

IrishPete said :

dungfungus said :

Meanwhile, the ocean level is not going up or down.

I assumed they meant they don’t believe in tides either.

IP

You know we are talking about the mean level so why make smart arse comments?

astrojax said :

that’s not what science asserts – now, who do i believe, peer reviewed scientists or an anonymous antagonist on a website..?

I will thank you not to drag me into your childish arguments.

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

For the record there were 10 days in January where it was 35+ degrees and we’ve already had 7 days in February of 35+ degrees. That has got to be an all time record surely?

It may be a record for the site where the readings were recorded but if the site has only been there a few years (Canberra Airport for example) there is no way it is a record for Canberra generally.
There were lots of discussions in the Canberra Times about this subject recently and readings taken at Yarralumla and Acton many years ago when they were the “official” sites indicate that our recent hot spell has been just that.

According to Weatherzone Canberra Airport weather records date back to 1939 so it’s more than a few years. The only other readily available info online is Tuggers which dates back to 1996. While the average temps for Tuggers are marginally less than Canberra Airport unless someone can provide info to the contrary the stint of abnormally hot weather we’ve had recently is unprecedented.

dungfungus said :

You know, you can get through life easier if you ignore doomsday theories; even if man made climate change is proven to be valid there is nothing you or I can do about it and neither of us will be here after the earth implodes to say “I was right”.

Great quoting folks. I think I’ve fixed it now.

There IS something you can do about it. It’s just you are too selfish or lazy to do so.

IP

dungfungus said :

Meanwhile, the ocean level is not going up or down.

I assumed they meant they don’t believe in tides either.

IP

bundah said :

For the record there were 10 days in January where it was 35+ degrees and we’ve already had 7 days in February of 35+ degrees. That has got to be an all time record surely?

It may be a record for the site where the readings were recorded but if the site has only been there a few years (Canberra Airport for example) there is no way it is a record for Canberra generally.
There were lots of discussions in the Canberra Times about this subject recently and readings taken at Yarralumla and Acton many years ago when they were the “official” sites indicate that our recent hot spell has been just that.

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

Roundhead89 said :

PantsMan said :

Meanwhile, the ocean level is not going up or down.

that’s not what science asserts – now, who do i believe, peer reviewed scientists or an anonymous antagonist on a website..?

Mr Astrojax (your real name I presume), you believe what and whom you choose to believe. I have great respect for scientists but their computer modelled predictions about their version of climate change are simply projections. Next time you go to Sydney, check out Fort Denison; you will be surprised to discover it is still there and my visual observations of the sea level around it proves to me the levels have not changed in 50 years.
You know, you can get through life easier if you ignore doomsday theories; even if man made climate change is proven to be valid there is nothing you or I can do about it and neither of us will be here after the earth implodes to say “I was right”.
If you need an issue to wring your hands about, address population control in developing countries.

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

Roundhead89 said :

PantsMan said :

Meanwhile, the ocean level is not going up or down.

that’s not what science asserts – now, who do i believe, peer reviewed scientists or an anonymous antagonist on a website..?

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

Meanwhile, the ocean level is not going up or down.
I have some nice stamps from Kiribiti.

More nutty nonsense.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

“One aspect of this is a warming ocean resulting in increase of ocean volume through thermal expansion. There has also been addition of water from glacier and ice sheets and changes in storage of water on or in the land (e.g. retention of water in man-made dams and extraction of water from aquifers). These together result in changes in sea level.
“

Dungfungus exhibits full-blown denial.

dungfungus said :

So you are nominating Kiribiti (just because it is tiny it still deserves a capital letter) as the “the developing island state” that may be threatened by these”natural” pressures (why don’t you say climate change like everyone else?
The only “natural” pressures that Kiribiti (and other Pacific/Coral Sea Islands) are experiencing is tectonic plate convergences and I believe this is currently pushing some islands upward. Others are sinking. Meanwhile, the ocean level is not going up or down.
I have some nice stamps from Kiribiti.

If the concept of rising sea levels is new to you, you perhaps should get out more. That rock you are living on is affecting your knowledge of current affairs.

Once of the more catastrophic (and perhaps apocalyptic) scenarios that climate scientists (you know, the 97% who you think are wrong) talk about is climate refugees. It will be a bit harder to turn their boats around if their homeland is under water, or their drinking water is now salinated. Maybe it won’t be harder for the current government, but it will be for normal people who have some humanity.

IP

astrojax said :

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

Roundhead89 said :

PantsMan said :

Climate change is a socialist conspiracy to deindustrialise the western world, radically redistribute wealth, implement an agrarian autarky, and impose a One World Government.

I know you are trying to be flippant but the concept of climate change *is* being used to implement far left socialist ideas on the redistribution of wealth. At the recent UN climate change conference (which our government thankfully boycotted) a proposal was put up enabling poor countries to sue rich countries for compensation if a weather event happens which is deemed climate change related. The Rudd and Gillard government gave extra foreign aid grants to Pacific Island nations “to cope with the effects of climate change”. Many of these countries see climate change as another excuse to milk even more money out of us, and hopefully the Abbott government will bring this whole gravy train to a stop when the Commission of Audit reports and the Budget is brought down.

I would like to see clawback legislation introduced which forces scientists and universities to pay back all climate change-related grants received during the Labor government’s time in office.

so if someone runs into your car then pays for the repairs it’s called ‘compensation’ but when wealthy states pollute the atmosphere and cause catastrophic changes in climate that occasion damage to a developing island state, their demands for compensation is ‘a gravy train’? ah, thanks for clearing that one up for us…

And exactly where is this mythical developing island state that wealthy nations are polluting its atmosphere and causing catastrophic changes in climate that occasion damage and what is the nature of the damage?

not polluting its atmosphere; polluting the atmosphere… climate change means there will be more and more severe weather events, storm surges and the like – and nations like kiribati for instance exist only some two to three metres above current sea levels. even our own torres strait islanders are facing threats from these ‘natural’ pressures.

So you are nominating Kiribiti (just because it is tiny it still deserves a capital letter) as the “the developing island state” that may be threatened by these”natural” pressures (why don’t you say climate change like everyone else?
The only “natural” pressures that Kiribiti (and other Pacific/Coral Sea Islands) are experiencing is tectonic plate convergences and I believe this is currently pushing some islands upward. Others are sinking. Meanwhile, the ocean level is not going up or down.
I have some nice stamps from Kiribiti.

dungfungus said :

astrojax said :

Roundhead89 said :

PantsMan said :

Climate change is a socialist conspiracy to deindustrialise the western world, radically redistribute wealth, implement an agrarian autarky, and impose a One World Government.

I know you are trying to be flippant but the concept of climate change *is* being used to implement far left socialist ideas on the redistribution of wealth. At the recent UN climate change conference (which our government thankfully boycotted) a proposal was put up enabling poor countries to sue rich countries for compensation if a weather event happens which is deemed climate change related. The Rudd and Gillard government gave extra foreign aid grants to Pacific Island nations “to cope with the effects of climate change”. Many of these countries see climate change as another excuse to milk even more money out of us, and hopefully the Abbott government will bring this whole gravy train to a stop when the Commission of Audit reports and the Budget is brought down.

I would like to see clawback legislation introduced which forces scientists and universities to pay back all climate change-related grants received during the Labor government’s time in office.

so if someone runs into your car then pays for the repairs it’s called ‘compensation’ but when wealthy states pollute the atmosphere and cause catastrophic changes in climate that occasion damage to a developing island state, their demands for compensation is ‘a gravy train’? ah, thanks for clearing that one up for us…

And exactly where is this mythical developing island state that wealthy nations are polluting its atmosphere and causing catastrophic changes in climate that occasion damage and what is the nature of the damage?

not polluting its atmosphere; polluting the atmosphere… climate change means there will be more and more severe weather events, storm surges and the like – and nations like kiribati for instance exist only some two to three metres above current sea levels. even our own torres strait islanders are facing threats from these ‘natural’ pressures.

astrojax said :

Roundhead89 said :

PantsMan said :

Climate change is a socialist conspiracy to deindustrialise the western world, radically redistribute wealth, implement an agrarian autarky, and impose a One World Government.

I know you are trying to be flippant but the concept of climate change *is* being used to implement far left socialist ideas on the redistribution of wealth. At the recent UN climate change conference (which our government thankfully boycotted) a proposal was put up enabling poor countries to sue rich countries for compensation if a weather event happens which is deemed climate change related. The Rudd and Gillard government gave extra foreign aid grants to Pacific Island nations “to cope with the effects of climate change”. Many of these countries see climate change as another excuse to milk even more money out of us, and hopefully the Abbott government will bring this whole gravy train to a stop when the Commission of Audit reports and the Budget is brought down.

I would like to see clawback legislation introduced which forces scientists and universities to pay back all climate change-related grants received during the Labor government’s time in office.

so if someone runs into your car then pays for the repairs it’s called ‘compensation’ but when wealthy states pollute the atmosphere and cause catastrophic changes in climate that occasion damage to a developing island state, their demands for compensation is ‘a gravy train’? ah, thanks for clearing that one up for us…

And exactly where is this mythical developing island state that wealthy nations are polluting its atmosphere and causing catastrophic changes in climate that occasion damage and what is the nature of the damage?

howeph said :

IrishPete said :

I’m a little reluctant to use the “97% of scientists can’t be wrong” line as someone recently posted a link to the source, and the survey didn’t have a great methodology, the 97% being of something like 80 scientists. I didn’t check it in great detail, but what I did read made me cautious.

IP, you can use that figure with confidence:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/17/global_warming_climate_scientists_overwhelmingly_agree_it_s_real_and_is.html

From the link above:

This study looked at nearly 12,000 professional scientific journal papers about global warming, and found that—of the papers expressing a stance on global warming (about 4000 of them) —97 percent endorse both the reality of global warming and the fact that humans are causing it.

To verify the result they contacted 8500 authors of the papers in question and asked them to self-rate those papers. They got responses from 1200 authors (a nice fraction), and, using the same criteria as the study, it turns out 97.2 percent of the authors endorse the consensus.

If you find 80 cardiac surgeons that all give you the same advice, I’d say you’d be sensible to ignore the 2 remaining nutters who advocate you smoke more and eat more bacon.

NoImRight said :

PantsMan said :

Climate change is a socialist conspiracy to deindustrialise the western world, radically redistribute wealth, implement an agrarian autarky, and impose a One World Government.

Your working for our Insect Overlords arent you.

Are the people who think a One World Government is a bad thing also against Australia’s federation? It’s exactly the same concept. Federalism.

IP

switch said :

IrishPete said :

1) As the highest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases, of course Australia reducing its emissions will make a difference. And of course our impact is even greater because we export shit for other people to burn and pollute the atmosphere. (And we export uranium too, just to cap our bad reputation.)

Here we go again. We are not. Can we please lay this meme to rest? Last time I looked, we were No. 11, we’ve crept up to No. 9 in this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita

And the climate doesn’t give a stuff about per-capita emissions, it is the total amount of crap being pumped into the atmosphere that is causing the problem. We are not anywhere close to the top of that list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

That list puts Australia at Number 5 in 2005, and in 2000, excluding land use change. The source of that table now provides data for 2010. Australia’s emissions have increased. Well done Australia. A few other countries have overtaken us. Boo hiss.

But the later poster is correct, I meant to say OECD. But being No. 5 in the world behind tiny places like Qatar, UAE, Luxembourg and Kuwait is hardly something to be proud of.

Per capita emissions are entirely relevant, as any actions taken are per capita.

Even if you look at total emissions, we are just below the UK, a country with more than three times the population. Well done Australia.

I was asked what I was doing to save the planet and I answered. If you live in a rental property, or an apartment, the things you do will be different. On cloudy days (and at night) I pull power from the grid. On sunny days I export excess power to the grid. It’s not rocket science.

Uranium has beautiful plumage, but it’s still poisonous and polluting, in its mining, use for production of power, and waste disposal.

IP

Pork Hunt said :

Will that help us get rid of Mr Rabbit’s awful government? ..

I might agree with you, or I might not. But one thing I have always thought is that the stupid name calling such as Rabbit, Juliar, Krudd, Mad Monk, O’Bummer, The Rodent (which I believe was a popular online name for Howard) completely detract from whatever point the poster is trying to make.

I usually switch off once someone resorts to that, it is fairly obvious they have nothing of substance to add to the discussion. No matter whether I agree with their opinion or not.

PantsMan said :

Climate change is a socialist conspiracy to deindustrialise the western world, radically redistribute wealth, implement an agrarian autarky, and impose a One World Government.

Will that help us get rid of Mr Rabbit’s awful government? Oh, while you’re there, send some of that redistributed loot my way. Not called Pork Hunt for no reason…

Mr Gillespie said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

……..YEAH SCIENCE IS CRAAAAAAAPPPP!!!!!!!

YEAH MANIPULATION OF SCIENCE TO SUIT AN AGENDA IS CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPP!!!!

Can you tell me about the agenda?

Also, you do not seem to understand how science works.

Roundhead89 said :

PantsMan said :

Climate change is a socialist conspiracy to deindustrialise the western world, radically redistribute wealth, implement an agrarian autarky, and impose a One World Government.

I know you are trying to be flippant but the concept of climate change *is* being used to implement far left socialist ideas on the redistribution of wealth. At the recent UN climate change conference (which our government thankfully boycotted) a proposal was put up enabling poor countries to sue rich countries for compensation if a weather event happens which is deemed climate change related. The Rudd and Gillard government gave extra foreign aid grants to Pacific Island nations “to cope with the effects of climate change”. Many of these countries see climate change as another excuse to milk even more money out of us, and hopefully the Abbott government will bring this whole gravy train to a stop when the Commission of Audit reports and the Budget is brought down.

I would like to see clawback legislation introduced which forces scientists and universities to pay back all climate change-related grants received during the Labor government’s time in office.

so if someone runs into your car then pays for the repairs it’s called ‘compensation’ but when wealthy states pollute the atmosphere and cause catastrophic changes in climate that occasion damage to a developing island state, their demands for compensation is ‘a gravy train’? ah, thanks for clearing that one up for us…

PantsMan said :

Climate change is a socialist conspiracy to deindustrialise the western world, radically redistribute wealth, implement an agrarian autarky, and impose a One World Government.

I know you are trying to be flippant but the concept of climate change *is* being used to implement far left socialist ideas on the redistribution of wealth. At the recent UN climate change conference (which our government thankfully boycotted) a proposal was put up enabling poor countries to sue rich countries for compensation if a weather event happens which is deemed climate change related. The Rudd and Gillard government gave extra foreign aid grants to Pacific Island nations “to cope with the effects of climate change”. Many of these countries see climate change as another excuse to milk even more money out of us, and hopefully the Abbott government will bring this whole gravy train to a stop when the Commission of Audit reports and the Budget is brought down.

I would like to see clawback legislation introduced which forces scientists and universities to pay back all climate change-related grants received during the Labor government’s time in office.

PantsMan said :

Climate change is a socialist conspiracy to deindustrialise the western world, radically redistribute wealth, implement an agrarian autarky, and impose a One World Government.

Your working for our Insect Overlords arent you.

bundah said :

For the record there were 10 days in January where it was 35+ degrees and we’ve already had 7 days in February of 35+ degrees. That has got to be an all time record surely?

No doubt about it, and that’s NOT “craaaaaaap”

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

……..YEAH SCIENCE IS CRAAAAAAAPPPP!!!!!!!

YEAH MANIPULATION OF SCIENCE TO SUIT AN AGENDA IS CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPP!!!!

IrishPete said :

1) what are you raving about? if I try to take your question seriously, I’d say they didn’t dig up and burn coal, oil and gas, they didn’t deforest huge swathes of the world. They probably had some natural population controls that we don’t have now. That’s enough for now.

All the better to introduce large cats and carnivores into cities to keep the average stupidity levels down, No body would debate climate change except we save the stupid ones from themselves these days. Or

For the record there were 10 days in January where it was 35+ degrees and we’ve already had 7 days in February of 35+ degrees. That has got to be an all time record surely?

U.K. Probes whether Strange, Wet Winter Is Part of a Changing Climate

This year’s winter weather has not been seen in at least 248 years

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7zL14dMfSO0/TpShEO5bIkI/AAAAAAAAAA0/x8mjNgDFTi0/s1600/hoax.jpg

Mr Gillespie said :

IrishPete said :

1) As the highest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases, of course Australia reducing its emissions will make a difference. And of course our impact is even greater because we export shit for other people to burn and pollute the atmosphere. (And we export uranium too, just to cap our bad reputation.)

2) What else do you object to? Being told not to litter, pour used car oil down the drains, dump rubbish in the bush? Not being allowed to speed or drink drive? This is self-serving claptrap. I run my air conditioner guilt-free because I also have 2kw of solar panels to run it from.

3) complete bollocks. Climate change means greater variability in weather, not “hotter”. Greater variability – hotter in our summers, colder in our winters. Hotter in northern summers, colder in northern winters. More extreme climate events (floods, storms, heatwaves, droughts). Ring any bells? And it has barely started yet.

IP

1. That logic is flawed because you are talking about “per capita” which isn’t the same as “total output”. While I agree with you about exporting shit to other (hideously overpopulated which means hideous “capitas” that add huge amounts to the “total output”, little wonder we’re getting global warming) countries to burn and emit greenhouse gases, it doesn’t help to bring in irrelevant subjects like uranium (a substance which doesn’t emit any kind of greenhouse or climate-changing gas at all)

2. It isn’t always practical to put huge solar panels on the roof of one’s house, especially if it is a rental multi-unit dwelling owned by someone else (and the number of units is too large for the solar panels to serve), and what about hot days when the sun doesn’t shine, and hot nights? Where does your clean energy come from now?

3. Oh, so we’re getting colder winters are we? Ah yeah, like the time we had all these lovely snowdrifts covering the streets of Canberra last winter on one of the numerous 14°C days we didn’t use to have in past winters when we used to have a lot of 10°Cs (we had a record fewest single digit maximums last winter). Definitely warming, not cooling here!

YEAH SCIENCE IS CRAAAAAAAPPPP!!!!!!!

IrishPete said :

I’m a little reluctant to use the “97% of scientists can’t be wrong” line as someone recently posted a link to the source, and the survey didn’t have a great methodology, the 97% being of something like 80 scientists. I didn’t check it in great detail, but what I did read made me cautious.

IP, you can use that figure with confidence:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/17/global_warming_climate_scientists_overwhelmingly_agree_it_s_real_and_is.html

From the link above:

This study looked at nearly 12,000 professional scientific journal papers about global warming, and found that—of the papers expressing a stance on global warming (about 4000 of them) —97 percent endorse both the reality of global warming and the fact that humans are causing it.

To verify the result they contacted 8500 authors of the papers in question and asked them to self-rate those papers. They got responses from 1200 authors (a nice fraction), and, using the same criteria as the study, it turns out 97.2 percent of the authors endorse the consensus.

switch said :

IrishPete said :

1) As the highest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases, of course Australia reducing its emissions will make a difference. And of course our impact is even greater because we export shit for other people to burn and pollute the atmosphere. (And we export uranium too, just to cap our bad reputation.)

Here we go again. We are not. Can we please lay this meme to rest? Last time I looked, we were No. 11, we’ve crept up to No. 9 in this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita

And the climate doesn’t give a stuff about per-capita emissions, it is the total amount of crap being pumped into the atmosphere that is causing the problem. We are not anywhere close to the top of that list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

We are number one per capita emitter in OECD.

Climate change is a socialist conspiracy to deindustrialise the western world, radically redistribute wealth, implement an agrarian autarky, and impose a One World Government.

Even if you choose to dismiss climate change as a concept surely you must agree we need to rethink the way we misuse resources and pollute now.Climate change or no climate change we are leaving the planet worse than how we found it.

dungfungus said :

What did cavemen do to control climate change?

Same as what they did to control smallpox or kidney failure.

IrishPete said :

1) As the highest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases, of course Australia reducing its emissions will make a difference. And of course our impact is even greater because we export shit for other people to burn and pollute the atmosphere. (And we export uranium too, just to cap our bad reputation.)

2) What else do you object to? Being told not to litter, pour used car oil down the drains, dump rubbish in the bush? Not being allowed to speed or drink drive? This is self-serving claptrap. I run my air conditioner guilt-free because I also have 2kw of solar panels to run it from.

3) complete bollocks. Climate change means greater variability in weather, not “hotter”. Greater variability – hotter in our summers, colder in our winters. Hotter in northern summers, colder in northern winters. More extreme climate events (floods, storms, heatwaves, droughts). Ring any bells? And it has barely started yet.

IP

1. That logic is flawed because you are talking about “per capita” which isn’t the same as “total output”. While I agree with you about exporting shit to other (hideously overpopulated which means hideous “capitas” that add huge amounts to the “total output”, little wonder we’re getting global warming) countries to burn and emit greenhouse gases, it doesn’t help to bring in irrelevant subjects like uranium (a substance which doesn’t emit any kind of greenhouse or climate-changing gas at all)

2. It isn’t always practical to put huge solar panels on the roof of one’s house, especially if it is a rental multi-unit dwelling owned by someone else (and the number of units is too large for the solar panels to serve), and what about hot days when the sun doesn’t shine, and hot nights? Where does your clean energy come from now?

3. Oh, so we’re getting colder winters are we? Ah yeah, like the time we had all these lovely snowdrifts covering the streets of Canberra last winter on one of the numerous 14°C days we didn’t use to have in past winters when we used to have a lot of 10°Cs (we had a record fewest single digit maximums last winter). Definitely warming, not cooling here!

IrishPete said :

1) As the highest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases, of course Australia reducing its emissions will make a difference. And of course our impact is even greater because we export shit for other people to burn and pollute the atmosphere. (And we export uranium too, just to cap our bad reputation.)

Here we go again. We are not. Can we please lay this meme to rest? Last time I looked, we were No. 11, we’ve crept up to No. 9 in this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita

And the climate doesn’t give a stuff about per-capita emissions, it is the total amount of crap being pumped into the atmosphere that is causing the problem. We are not anywhere close to the top of that list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

bundah said :

Opinions are like arseholes but when 97% of scientists say that climate change is real and highly likely anthropogenic why are so many rioters sceptical and what is the basis for their scepticism?

Here’s just a couple of links that I challenge you to debunk…

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1029

I’m a little reluctant to use the “97% of scientists can’t be wrong” line as someone recently posted a link to the source, and the survey didn’t have a great methodology, the 97% being of something like 80 scientists. I didn’t check it in great detail, but what I did read made me cautious.

But you don’t need the 97% quote to be able to say that there is broad scientific consensus. In fact, i wouldn’t be surprised if it was higher than 97%. I’d be very surprised if it was much below 97%.

dungfungus said :

IrishPete said :

Roundhead89 said :

Oh god, everybody’s forgotten about climate change yet here we have the dogs returning to their vomit again. What part of “no” do they not understand? Climate change is history. Get over it.

You are contradicting yourself. “climate change is history”” is the correct expression – it is an established scientific fact, and a very long time ago, as much as it can be without sitting back doing nothing and waiting for it to happen, which would be the equivalent of saying “I hate my children and grandchildren, and I shit on their futures”.

IP

1) What did cavemen do to control climate change?
2) What are you doing personally to save the world?

1) what are you raving about? if I try to take your question seriously, I’d say they didn’t dig up and burn coal, oil and gas, they didn’t deforest huge swathes of the world. They probably had some natural population controls that we don’t have now. That’s enough for now.

2) 2kw of solar panels on my roof, heat pump water heater, slow combustion fire (burning infinitely renewable wood), low fuel consumption car, no children, vote for and Member of The Greens, and some other things I don’t feel like disclosing here. Next question please?

Mr Gillespie said :

Stalled weather patterns. What’s that got to do with global warming.

Nothing, or are you suggesting that we had a blocking high in the Tasman for 12 months?

Mr Gillespie said :

Anyway, while there is irrefutable evidence that Australia itself is getting hotter, it is questionable whether the global warming really is global.

Seriously? You’re about 30 years behind where the current understanding is. Have a hard squint at this or this…oh and stop reading WUWT it’ll do your head in.

IrishPete said :

Roundhead89 said :

Oh god, everybody’s forgotten about climate change yet here we have the dogs returning to their vomit again. What part of “no” do they not understand? Climate change is history. Get over it.

You are contradicting yourself. “climate change is history”” is the correct expression – it is an established scientific fact, and a very long time ago, as much as it can be without sitting back doing nothing and waiting for it to happen, which would be the equivalent of saying “I hate my children and grandchildren, and I shit on their futures”.

IP

What did cavemen do to control climate change?
What are you doing personally to save the world?

Opinions are like arseholes but when 97% of scientists say that climate change is real and highly likely anthropogenic why are so many rioters sceptical and what is the basis for their scepticism?

Here’s just a couple of links that I challenge you to debunk…

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1029

Mr Gillespie said :

Anyway, while there is irrefutable evidence that Australia itself is getting hotter, it is questionable whether the global warming really is global.

It’s only questionable if you are ignorant. Deliberately ignorant and getting your facts from Andrew Bolt instead of the ibnformed experts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png

You’ll notice 2012 was the warmest La Nina year ever. La Nina years *usually* represent years when heat is being circulated into the oceans, but they are no longer cool years like they used to be.

Our global climate has changed.

We’ve emitted so much CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil-fuels that we have increased the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280ppm to 400ppm.

CO2’s absorption spectrum means it doesn’t absorb shorter-wave radiation (like sunlight) but it does absorb longer-wave radiation (like infra-red).
When sunlight hits the earth, it loses energy – it gets slower – and that proportion of the radiation that “bounces” straight back up out towards space now has a longer wavelength than before. The CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs a proportion of this radiation. More CO2 means more heat is absorbed, instead of going straight out to space.

Now, I know it is too much to hope for retards like Gillespie and Roundhead to read this and accept that their belief is not in accordance with the facts of which they are so mightily ignorant, but here’s hoping that these prolific purveyors of anti-science bullsh!t are going to be less likely to confuse others if those others can read what I have written and gain confidence in their understanding of the very real facts of human-caused climate change, which is an unassailable reality and only contradicted by paid lobbyists and their useful idiots.

Mr Gillespie said :

Stalled weather patterns. What’s that got to do with global warming, and how is reducing Australia’s CO? output going to make any difference?

While I do accept that if we stop exporting coal it should satisfy the climate action activists as far as Australia is concerned, I object to being told to limit driving, flying and ESPECIALLY take particular objection to being told to turn off my airconditioning to “reduce our emissions”.

Anyway, while there is irrefutable evidence that Australia itself is getting hotter, it is questionable whether the global warming really is global.

1) As the highest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases, of course Australia reducing its emissions will make a difference. And of course our impact is even greater because we export shit for other people to burn and pollute the atmosphere. (And we export uranium too, just to cap our bad reputation.)

2) What else do you object to? Being told not to litter, pour used car oil down the drains, dump rubbish in the bush? Not being allowed to speed or drink drive? This is self-serving claptrap. I run my air conditioner guilt-free because I also have 2kw of solar panels to run it from.

3) complete bollocks. Climate change means greater variability in weather, not “hotter”. Greater variability – hotter in our summers, colder in our winters. Hotter in northern summers, colder in northern winters. More extreme climate events (floods, storms, heatwaves, droughts). Ring any bells? And it has barely started yet.

IP

Roundhead89 said :

Oh god, everybody’s forgotten about climate change yet here we have the dogs returning to their vomit again. What part of “no” do they not understand? Climate change is history. Get over it.

You are contradicting yourself. “climate change is history”” is the correct expression – it is an established scientific fact, and a very long time ago, as much as it can be without sitting back doing nothing and waiting for it to happen, which would be the equivalent of saying “I hate my children and grandchildren, and I shit on their futures”.

IP

Apparently the heat is being stored in the ocean rather than the atmosphere. Not good.

so, no beach then?

Gobbo said :

There are mosquitos now in England.

I was bitten a number of times when i was last there.

I don’t remeber them being there before.

I wonder what changed? Climate perhaps?

Perhaps more people/warm houses

There are mosquitos now in England.

I was bitten a number of times when i was last there.

I don’t remeber them being there before.

I wonder what changed? Climate perhaps?

Comic & Gamer Nerd: where have I heard that “CLIMATE CHANGE IS CRAP” mock before……

Smells like an Internet discussion-forum virus spread around by trolls

Mr Gillespie said :

Stalled weather patterns. What’s that got to do with global warming, and how is reducing Australia’s CO? output going to make any difference?

While I do accept that if we stop exporting coal it should satisfy the climate action activists as far as Australia is concerned, I object to being told to limit driving, flying and ESPECIALLY take particular objection to being told to turn off my airconditioning to “reduce our emissions”.

Anyway, while there is irrefutable evidence that Australia itself is getting hotter, it is questionable whether the global warming really is global.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS CRAP!!!!!

Oh god, everybody’s forgotten about climate change yet here we have the dogs returning to their vomit again. What part of “no” do they not understand? Climate change is history. Get over it.

Linking the cold snap in the US and wild winds in Britain (extreme weather events, which have always happened from time to time throughout history since the dawn of time) to global warming (or is it climate change, what is it?) is a bit of a long bow to stretch, and as such fuels the “climate skeptics”.

Mr Gillespie said :

Anyway, while there is irrefutable evidence that Australia itself is getting hotter, it is questionable whether the global warming really is global.

So this is questionable then: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201401.pdf

9 of the top 10 hottest years globally are since 2000. The only one that isn’t was 1998.

P.S. Did you know that if you were born after 1976 you have NEVER lived through a year with a global average temperature less than the 20th century average! 2013 was the 37th consecutive year that the yearly global temperature was above average.

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

Actually it is climate change – not global warming. What about the weather in UK and USA at the moment which is caused by the jet stream being warmed up via the warming oceans.

Stalled weather patterns. What’s that got to do with global warming, and how is reducing Australia’s CO? output going to make any difference?

While I do accept that if we stop exporting coal it should satisfy the climate action activists as far as Australia is concerned, I object to being told to limit driving, flying and ESPECIALLY take particular objection to being told to turn off my airconditioning to “reduce our emissions”.

Anyway, while there is irrefutable evidence that Australia itself is getting hotter, it is questionable whether the global warming really is global.

And yet our hottest temp was 1968