Sackings at the Department of Climate Change

dungfungus said :

Science is true only to the point of observation and testing (not predictions using computer modelling) and there is scant evidence that the globe is warming more than it has ever done before. The increasing/decreasing presence of CO2 is therefore academic to the issue.
I am intrigued as to where you are “moving onto” to after you leave the “willfully ignorant” behind.

Dungfungus, I hope you’re not suggesting that climate science is based solely on computer modelling.

The general principles behind the theory of man-made climate change are founded on pretty basic rules of chemistry and physics. The ability of carbon dioxide to absorb and radiate infrared heat radiation has been known to science since the 19th century. The theory of climate change was hypothesis well before it was observed. The changes that have been observed are generally in line with predictions.

(This is where you will scream about Tim Flannery saying it would never rain again…. in fact if you look at the journal articles being published when Flannery made the statement that the dams might never fill again the articles overwhelming predicted an intensified cycle of drought and flood).

Science has data that clearly shows that the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by close to 40% since pre-industrial times. There is also data involving spectral analysis of infrared heat radiations, which has measured that the amount of this radiation leaving the Earth’s atmosphere at the wavelength that CO2 absorbs it has decreased, while the amount being reflected back to Earth has increased.

The greenhouse capabilities of CO2 (and the measured increase of it in the atmosphere as a result of human activity), combined with the observable changes in global climate that were hypothesised before their observation, as well as the observable changes in infrared heat loss and absorption at CO2 wavelengths, provide a direct causal link between human activity and climate change.

DrKoresh said :

Well, we can start by moving on to combat the issue, those people who are still unconvinced are obviously invested in denying the issues, so I’m saying we should disregard their views and opinions on dealing with climate change and get cracking on trying to mitigate our influence on it.

It will be a long, lonely journey with no destination. Good luck!

Well, we can start by moving on to combat the issue, those people who are still unconvinced are obviously invested in denying the issues, so I’m saying we should disregard their views and opinions on dealing with climate change and get cracking on trying to mitigate our influence on it.

DrKoresh said :

The great thing about science is that it’s true regardless of whether you believe in it. People evolved from apes, the Earth orbits the Sun and cigarettes will kill you (as much as I wish that weren’t true). Some people won’t accept the truth because it’s not the truth they want to hear. Sadly, reality isn’t subjective, even if our experience of it is, and all we can do is move on and leave the wilfully ignorant out of the discussion.

Science is true only to the point of observation and testing (not predictions using computer modelling) and there is scant evidence that the globe is warming more than it has ever done before. The increasing/decreasing presence of CO2 is therefore academic to the issue.
I am intrigued as to where you are “moving onto” to after you leave the “willfully ignorant” behind.

The great thing about science is that it’s true regardless of whether you believe in it. People evolved from apes, the Earth orbits the Sun and cigarettes will kill you (as much as I wish that weren’t true). Some people won’t accept the truth because it’s not the truth they want to hear. Sadly, reality isn’t subjective, even if our experience of it is, and all we can do is move on and leave the wilfully ignorant out of the discussion.

welkin31 said :

Re #5 dungfungus
[Are you referring to this nonsense today from the University Of Melbourne where they have been reading tree rings and coral spikes for the past 5000 years and have concluded that the last 50 years have been the hottest? This spiel beats Bob Brown’s recent talk of meeting with aliens from another planet.]

Despite the Great Barrier Reef being the most researched on the Planet – the University Of Melbourne study uses no coral based proxy temperature data from the GBR.

Funny that – wonder why.

Thanks for pointing that out.
I gave up wondering what motivates global warmists to “cross pollinate “data long ago. The only ones that believe them anymore are the gullible who accept everything they say as gospel.

Re #5 dungfungus
[Are you referring to this nonsense today from the University Of Melbourne where they have been reading tree rings and coral spikes for the past 5000 years and have concluded that the last 50 years have been the hottest? This spiel beats Bob Brown’s recent talk of meeting with aliens from another planet.]

Despite the Great Barrier Reef being the most researched on the Planet – the University Of Melbourne study uses no coral based proxy temperature data from the GBR. Funny that – wonder why.

Does anyone know what areas? I’m thinking of applying for a job in the Clean Energy Regulator area.

PantsMan said :

LOLLLLLLLL “Clean energy jobs of the future” for all of them!

I hope they hit the energy efficiency people particularly hard. There are some real creeps and weirdos in that bit of the DCCEE Soviet.

Charming.

LOLLLLLLLL “Clean energy jobs of the future” for all of them!

I hope they hit the energy efficiency people particularly hard. There are some real creeps and weirdos in that bit of the DCCEE Soviet.