Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge! [Archive]

View Full Version : Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge!

flyingcrocodile46

30th November 2015, 17:16

No! It's not a joke.

Do you believe in the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? Want to help the IPCC with an embarrassing little statistical problem in their latest report? Want to win $100,000? Today James introduces you to Douglas J. Keenan's $100,000 contest to identify trend-driven time series.

It has often been claimed that alarm about global warming is supported by observational evidence. I have argued that there is no observational evidence for global-warming alarm: rather, all claims of such evidence rely on invalid statistical analyses.
Some people, though, have asserted that the statistical analyses are valid. Those people assert, in particular, that they can determine, via statistical analysis, whether global temperatures have been increasing more than would be reasonably expected by random natural variation. Those people do not present any counter to my argument, but they make their assertions anyway.
In response to that, I am sponsoring a contest: the prize is $100 000. In essence, the prize will be awarded to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

Enter here ----------> http://www.informath.org/Contest1000.htm

<iframe src="https://www.corbettreport.com/?powerpress_embed=17101-podcast&powerpress_player=mediaelement-video" scrolling="no" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>
(http://www.informath.org/Contest1000.htm)

bogan

30th November 2015, 17:24

That fuckwit should provide statistical evidence he has $100,000 to begin with :whistle:

iYRe

30th November 2015, 17:32

safest 100k ever.

yokel

1st December 2015, 05:56

But but the world leaders are going to "save the planet"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/74545650/christiana-figueres-the-woman-tasked-with-saving-the-world-from-global-warming

Climate change = more government telling us how to live our lives.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/82W41de4TT4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

R650R

1st December 2015, 10:40

I was listening to radiolive at work other weekend/night???? and that bright sounding lady had Ken Ring on there being interviewed.
He raised a good point when we are told about earths temperature rising.
He asked so what is the earths global temperature supposed to be at any one time, what has it warmed from, what should it be????????????
There is a lot of talk about averages but no mention actual temperastures the earth should be on a given day......

TheDemonLord

1st December 2015, 11:22

Interesting that he charges for entry to the contest....

SPman

1st December 2015, 20:50

yokel

2nd December 2015, 19:34

AGW deniers have never been able to substantiate their crackpot conspiracy theories with any actual concrete evidence. (Pseudoscience, misconceptions and outright lies sure, but never anything bona fide.)

AGW is now just political jibber jabber, after the "inconvenient truth" joke, why should I just believe what the AGW crackpots have to say?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dKRneha-4VE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

flyingcrocodile46

3rd December 2015, 17:16

AGW deniers have never been able to substantiate their crackpot conspiracy theories with any actual concrete evidence. (Pseudoscience, misconceptions and outright lies sure, but never anything bona fide.)

It's taken me over 24 hrs to lift my jaw up off the ground since I read your post. The absolute purity and seemingly infinite irony and stupidity that you encapsulated in your post is such that it exceeds (by several magnitudes) that of any post I have seen in close to 20 years of internet exchanges with literally thousands of people ranging the full spectrum of professions and handicaps. You sir, are to be congratulated.

No doubt it would be a waste of time expecting that you would read this very simple (read as uncomplicated un-pseudscientific) explanation of the wrongness of the whole cLie-mate change charade. I say this chiefly because it is based on the very simplest of facts surrounding the issue. The understanding of which would require you not to be a screaming fuckwit, and based on your last post that would appear to be exceedingly unlikely. But here ya go.... De-bunk away.

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg305/flyingcrocodile46/Simple%20facts.jpg

Voltaire

3rd December 2015, 18:26

flyingcrocodile46

3rd December 2015, 19:06

I can't for a moment imagine 9 billion humans pumping out carbon dioxide along with their legions of domestic animals and millions of cars and coal fired power stations for one minute would have any effect on the planet.:msn-wink:

It's easy to see how the significance of a minor manipulation of factual climate data and a major manipulation in its presentation is lost on the great unwashed when they are satisfied by a 77% accuracy rate.

If you are so easily satisfied, surely you aren't going to split hairs over a mere 0.28% to 4.83% increase. Hell! I just shaved 1.7 billion off your overpopulated planet. You can breath an extra big sigh of relief without any recrimination. Say thank you and put all this climate nonsense behind you so you can concentrate on worrying about the unprecedented C02 producing burn off in Malaysia that no one is talking about.

No one is going to win the $100,000 (not even one of the cLiemate propagating scientists) because the fear mongering (which the unwashed appear to suck up like it was coming out of a titty) is based on psuedo-scientific fraud that quite simply can't be proven to be correct (not even 90% correct).

You would think it would be easy with all that hard data at their fingertips which they say is so convincing eh! Wonder why they haven't collected yet????? they must be busy shooting bigger fish in an even smaller barrel eh! (or perhaps they aren't so stupid as to remove the tit camouflage from their cock when they are having so much fun)

Katman

3rd December 2015, 19:19

Hey, at least not wanting to create even more greenhouse gases has given Obama an excuse to not bomb the oil production that ISIS is getting rich off.

Voltaire

3rd December 2015, 20:25

It's easy to see how the significance of a minor manipulation of factual climate data and a major manipulation in its presentation is lost on the great unwashed when they are satisfied by a 77% accuracy rate.

If you are so easily satisfied, surely you aren't going to split hairs over a mere 0.28% to 4.83% increase. Hell! I just shaved 1.7 billion off your overpopulated planet. You can breath an extra big sigh of relief without any recrimination. Say thank you and put all this climate nonsense behind you so you can concentrate on worrying about the unprecedented C02 producing burn off in Malaysia that no one is talking about.

No one is going to win the $100,000 (not even one of the cLiemate propagating scientists) because the fear mongering (which the unwashed appear to suck up like it was coming out of a titty) is based on psuedo-scientific fraud that quite simply can't be proven to be correct (not even 90% correct).

You would think it would be easy with all that hard data at their fingertips which they say is so convincing eh! Wonder why they haven't collected yet????? they must be busy shooting bigger fish in an even smaller barrel eh! (or perhaps they aren't so stupid as to remove the tit camouflage from their cock when they are having so much fun)

I bet you looked it up, I took a guess.
And what about all those farting belching sheep and cows that we need for our 7.3 billion.

I looked this up:1.4 billion cattle, 1.9 billion sheep

Anyway, one day mankind will be gone much like the dinosaurs and the planet will move on.

Woodman

3rd December 2015, 20:34

So whats wrong with trying to lessen our impact on the planet/environment/climate?

SPman

3rd December 2015, 20:45

Water vapour constitutes Earths most significant greenhouse gas………… Nope. Water is just a multiplier forcing agent. CO2 does the heavy lifting

Interestingly many “facts and figures” regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapour in the greenhouse system………
Only from people who don't know what they're doing. The effects of water vapour are taken into account in most reputable models, as are the effects of most other "magical", "they never considered this", "what about all this....." "it's the sun, the moon," etc, obscure and not so obscure systems, forcings, cycles, etc,etc.
Despite what many people seem to think, "ye cannay change the laws of Physics"

It's taken me over 24 hrs to lift my jaw up off the ground since I read your post. The absolute purity and seemingly infinite irony and stupidity that you encapsulated in your post is such that it exceeds (by several magnitudes) that of any post I have seen in close to 20 years of internet exchanges with literally thousands of people ranging the full spectrum of professions and handicaps. You sir, are to be congratulated.

No doubt it would be a waste of time expecting that you would read this very simple (read as uncomplicated un-pseudscientific) explanation of the wrongness of the whole cLie-mate change charade. I say this chiefly because it is based on the very simplest of facts surrounding the issue. The understanding of which would require you not to be a screaming fuckwit, and based on your last post that would appear to be exceedingly unlikely. But here ya go.... De-bunk away.

Why....thank you. :sherlock:

TheDemonLord

3rd December 2015, 21:14

Climate change is actually an area where I sit more on the fence than most would expect.

Firstly - we should do something about our reliance on Fossil Fuels, with a view to lessen our impact on the environment - this is just good sense, regardless of Change or not. Likewise with all manner of industry - the less impact we have the better.

Where I have issue is that we quite simply do not understand how the Ice Age formed/thawed - Without an understanding of how this process works without manmade intervention, I do raise a skeptical eyebrow at the conclusion that any Weather changes could only be from the influence of Man.

Second issue is that both sides are guilty of funding 'science' in order to push an Agenda, both the Climate change deniers and the Greenies.

I personally prefer my science abscent of a political ideology.

Berries

3rd December 2015, 23:03

That will come when we die.
No doubt while trying to keep up on a group ride.

TheDemonLord

3rd December 2015, 23:26

You will be selling your motorbike and car if you have one and buying a push bike then? Yes we could close down all industry but the only problem is some of the money industry earns goes into taxes and without that you greenies will get no benefits. You greenies never think things through when you make claims about ways of stopping global warming.

Holy False Conclusions Batman!

This is the first time I have been called a Greenie

awa355

4th December 2015, 01:22

Well, the pro global warmer's will prove their case beyond doubt throughout the coming summer. :niceone:

The 'No' global warmer's will prove their case throughout the following winter. :niceone:

Somehow, I think this argument is going to be around for quite a while. :bleh:

mashman

4th December 2015, 07:10

You greenies never think things through when you make claims about ways of stopping global warming.

Resource Based Economy can handle the kind of industrial turmoil you expect... the financial economy, no, not so much as you've highlighted.

yokel

4th December 2015, 08:26

I personally prefer my science abscent of a political ideology.

Thats why you can never trust a "government scientist" , which is a oxymoron.
or a corporate backed scientist for that matter.

Everyone one's worried about what's coming out the tail pipe on their car's, while the actual physical environment is being raped and pillaged.

TheDemonLord

4th December 2015, 08:36

Well you are a hypocrite then with your statement about wanting oil use and industry being cut back to stop global warming then? I remember talking to a greenie at a protest once and i said to him
the only problem with your solution to stop global warming is that you want all oil and coal to be left in the ground and he said "no we dont" and I asked him what do you want then and he could not think of
anything. You sound a bit like the greenie I spoke to dont you?

I sound like a Greenie? Only if you are a Retard and can't read.... Oh Wait....

Lets Recap in TheDemonLord's Reading Comprehension 101 Class!

Climate change is actually an area where I sit more on the fence than most would expect.

This should be the first very clear hint that I am not a Greenie - Do you know of any Greenies who do not accept Climate Change as Gospel truth? Did your friend at the Protest sit on the fence about Global Warming?

The next blatant hint is in this line and specifically the section in bold:

Firstly - we should do something about our reliance on Fossil Fuels, with a view to lessen our impact on the environment - this is just good sense, regardless of Change or not.

My views on this are predicated on the fact that our entire society has a single point of Failure - for Aircraft and Cars there is no viable alternatives for Fossil Fuels to power them (and by Viable I mean alternatives that give the same range, efficiency and refuel/recharge time) - Boats can be Nuclear Powered (although isn't that a scary thought having commercial tankers plodding along by Somalia with a Nuclear Generator on board...)

Should we lessen our impact on the environment - sure we should - but lessen is a vague word - it could be mean working with industry to make a change of 5% less emissions whilst maintaining the same level of output, it could also mean the extreme extrapolated standpoint that you accused me of - of not allowing anyone to exploit any natural resource. However rather than clarify what I meant, you cherry picked a single idea, ignored the other parts of what I said and immediately jumped to a conclusion and argued from there.

TheDemonLord

4th December 2015, 08:38

Thats why you can never trust a "government scientist" , which is a oxymoron.
or a corporate backed scientist for that matter.

Everyone one's worried about what's coming out the tail pipe on their car's, while the actual physical environment is being raped and pillaged.

There is a Nugget of truth in that, I will concede, however Science isn't predicated on trust, it is predicated on Evidence - and one should be able to pick an experiment done by either the Corporate Scientist or the Government scientist and repeat the tests to verify the conclusions.

Although it may take some time, the bogus studies are eventually found to be just that, whilst the legitimate ones stand up to the rigorous scrutiny of Peer Review.

TheDemonLord

4th December 2015, 10:15

I saw your comment about sitting on the fence but it is only now after I pointed out what would happen with oil left in the ground and industrial activity being scaled back you are beginning to see how silly the comment you made in the first post was. There is only 1 solution to lessen human impact on the environmet and that is to have world wide population control as it is population growth that is creating greater and greater demand for resources. Do not forget global warming and cooling happened long before humans were on the earth so for all you know it may be just a planetary cycle we are going through. The govt is going to spend big money buying carbon credits though which I am sure will give you piece of mind in the absence of oil imports not being halted. I guess you will not be complaining if prices start going up for everything to fund these credits.

My God.

The limits of your ability to not understand basic English knows no bounds.

You assumed you knew my position, despite being completely and utterly incorrect.

You then try and lecture me about Planetary cycles despite me saying in my opening post:

Where I have issue is that we quite simply do not understand how the Ice Age formed/thawed - Without an understanding of how this process works without manmade intervention, I do raise a skeptical eyebrow at the conclusion that any Weather changes could only be from the influence of Man.

As for your 'there is only 1 solution' - what am idiotic position - You haven't considered a range of possibilities including development of technologies that use renewable resources, or the possibility of exploiting resources from other sources (you know, the Moon, Mars etc.)

Please, before you reply, read what I have written. Then Stop, then read it again and then make sure you actually understand what I have written, Then read it again to be sure - then when thinking about posting, double check what I have written, and finally when you are writing your response, reference what I have written to make sure you are actually responding to what I have written and not to the voices in your head, then finally just before you hit post, make sure that you aren't telling me things that I have already written in my post.

yokel

4th December 2015, 10:18

TheDemonLord

4th December 2015, 11:12

So you could have said in your very first post that I sit on the fence over this but whatever happens technology will save us eh? Not even the govt sees technology as saving us otherwise they would not be buying up carbon credits to do NZs bit to cool the planet but putting all their money into technology. For your information technologies can not be developed overnight especially the sort of technologies you are thinking of. Mining Mars or the Moon could be 20 - 50 or 200 years away if at all. People like you need to consider how affordable any technological solution developed will be and if they are not affordable they will not happen.

Necessity is the Mother of invention.

Look at the cost of the first computers, look at the cost of a Computer now - That was in the space of less than 60 years. Look at Human Aviation - we went from a short flight of about 100 meters to dog fighting over the trenches in 11 years then to breaking the sound barrier 30 years later. also look at the cost of flying - no longer the domain of just the super rich.

Maybe it is YOU who need to consider the history of human technological advancement and the decrease in costs as new technology is refined.

TheDemonLord

4th December 2015, 12:52

But you want to cool down the planet which in comparison the inventions you state are are no more complex than building a house. Technology wise the best we could hope for is for dykes to built around low lying coast lines but even the cost of that has can be prohibative with the ChCh City Council saying no to the built of a estury floodwall. You could always move to a cooler climate or higher ground to buy you some time while you wait for these planet cooling inventions to materialise at a price that is affordable by you. Personally if its something i have no control over and I am not being affected I dont worry as life is not eternal. I hope you live to see the technology come in yourself considering your concern. You could always try and develop a planet cooling device yourself rather that wait for others or maybe you have already started?

Okay - remember when I told you to read what I wrote before Posting?

It's clear you didn't read that.

Can you cite where I mentioned that:

a: I wanted to cool the planet down
b: Such inventions have an approximate complexity to that of houses

The only claim I made is that necessity is the Mother of Invention and that with time and refinement the cost of most technology decreases.

TheDemonLord

4th December 2015, 13:46

a:Cooling down the Planet is a term to describe what those who want to stop Global Warming want to to.
b: A case of you not reading as I said Such inventions have a complexity to that of building houses IN COMPARISON to cooling the planet.

but it isn't a Term or theory I have used anywhere - again, you assume my position and ignore what I wrote. Cooling down the planet may be a solution, alternatively other options might be creating efficient ways to breakdown/absorb/reduce the amount of Greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere, or by working with industry to reduce the output in the first place.

Your second statement still makes no sense - Houses aren't particularly complex - it seems like you are trying to make a point about it being prohibitively complex, by comparing it to something that is relatively simple.

TheDemonLord

4th December 2015, 14:29

If cooling the planet down or whatever name you want to give to stopping global warming is not prohibitivly complex lets hear your idea Einstein?

Possibly bacterial/plankton based (simple life forms to eat greenhouse gases), or some way of distributing fine particulates (in the upper atmosphere) that would catalyze greenhouse gases in the presence of sunlight or selectively breeding plant life to create a plant with extremely high surface area and very efficient at photosynthesis.

There's 3 ideas.

SPman

4th December 2015, 16:00

Where I have issue is that we quite simply do not understand how the Ice Age formed/thawed - Without an understanding of how this process works without manmade intervention, I do raise a skeptical eyebrow at the conclusion that any Weather changes could only be from the influence of Man.

Second issue is that both sides are guilty of funding 'science' in order to push an Agenda, both the Climate change deniers and the Greenies.

I personally prefer my science absent of a political ideology.Well, actually, we do have a pretty good idea how Ice Ages start and stop. Look it up.
Yes, climate changes, no one disputes that, it's the SPEED of the change in the last 100 yrs - particularly the last 50 yrs, that is the indication it's man made. In a natural system, CO2 generally balances out - input/removal. What we are doing is inputting at a far higher rate than it can be naturally removed, as well as removing some of the sources of removal (forests, wetlands, etc)

Funding science to push an agenda....most Climate scientists I know of would love to have some more funding, and, like most other scientists, do NOT "modify" their research, or results.......

A scientific "cure" to cool the planet would be horrendously expensive compared to trying to slow it down or stop it in the first place.

I'd prefer politics to be free of political ideology as well, but, it's going to creep in regardless to a degree.

SPman

4th December 2015, 19:41

So is expendidture on Carbon Credits horrendously expensive and the govt has signaled they are defintely going ahead with that . I could see expenditude on these credits screwing the economy big time and the planet will not be any cooler at the end of it. Some commentators have suggested the whole Carbon Credit racket is a one world govt conspiracy.

All these government "carbon credits" aren't worth shit! They're just a big snow job to make it look as though the government is doing something when it's actually shovelling money to it's mates.

A proper Carbon tax is better, if properly controlled in that it's meant to de-incentivise the use of heavy co2 producing processes by making it more expensive than the alternatives......unfortunately, all that seems to happen in practice, is that any costs are merely shovelled back on to the consumer.

TheDemonLord

4th December 2015, 19:44

Well, actually, we do have a pretty good idea how Ice Ages start and stop. Look it up.
Yes, climate changes, no one disputes that, it's the SPEED of the change in the last 100 yrs - particularly the last 50 yrs, that is the indication it's man made. In a natural system, CO2 generally balances out - input/removal. What we are doing is inputting at a far higher rate than it can be naturally removed, as well as removing some of the sources of removal (forests, wetlands, etc)

Funding science to push an agenda....most Climate scientists I know of would love to have some more funding, and, like most other scientists, do NOT "modify" their research, or results.......

A scientific "cure" to cool the planet would be horrendously expensive compared to trying to slow it down or stop it in the first place.

I'd prefer politics to be free of political ideology as well, but, it's going to creep in regardless to a degree.

The last thing I read (which was a wee while ago) - the mechanics of the Ice Ages were semi understood (as in what gases were present in the atmosphere during the change) but the cause of the change in atmospheric gases was the subject of much debate.

But certainly if you have any recent studies about it - I'd love to read them.

TheDemonLord

4th December 2015, 19:46

You need to forward your ideas to Tim Groser Climate Change Minister because his idea of buying carbon credits is definitly not going to work is it? I thought trees were supposed to be carbon eaters but with all the forest fires world wide they end up emitting carbon too as they burn plus there is volcanic emissions too. If there is anything to worry about in the world at the moment I would say issues in the Middle East are substantiallly greater than any Cllmate Change.

Actually - I don't need to do Squat.

The point was - you asked for Ideas (to try and show that those making the Critique are bereft of an alternative) and you got 3 (which you weren't expecting)

TheDemonLord

4th December 2015, 20:27

So whats the point of coming up with ideas then if you dont want to see them through to fruition?

To prove you wrong.

Or are you afraid they will be rejected by the govt climate change scientists?
I bet you will be kicking yourself for not submitting them if sea water does rise to dangerous levels during your lifetime

I'm neither a research scientist, nor an inventor, and surely if I can think of them, people in those positions can think of them too - and who will probably do a better job than I at making them a reality...

flyingcrocodile46

5th December 2015, 09:27

To prove you wrong.

I'm neither a research scientist, nor an inventor, and surely if I can think of them, people in those positions can think of them too - and who will probably do a better job than I at making them a reality...

No doubt. But that assumes that the objective is to fix the problem rather than taxing it. If that doesn't make sense, look at the tobacco model. A known killer that is perfectly acceptable...... when appropriately taxed. Wake the fuck up and use that brain properly.

TheDemonLord

5th December 2015, 11:44

No doubt. But that assumes that the objective is to fix the problem rather than taxing it. If that doesn't make sense, look at the tobacco model. A known killer that is perfectly acceptable...... when appropriately taxed. Wake the fuck up and use that brain properly.

Sure - they could Ban it - because that worked oh so well during Prohibition....

Regulation via Taxation is the lesser evil and adds to the Coffers.

yokel

5th December 2015, 12:50

Well there's always geoengineering??

https://youtu.be/a25spXwphDQ?list=LLQOKaQF7Yh_i5DtIl3xl2Zg

SPman

5th December 2015, 14:16

Climate change = more government telling us how to live our lives.

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/82W41de4TT4" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
Ah ... Alex Epstein

Alex Epstein is the director of the Center for Industrial Progress, a for-profit think tank he founded in 2011. Its mission is to “inspire Americans to embrace industrial progress as a cultural ideal.” He is also a blogger at Master Resource, a “Free Market Energy Blog,” and a past fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, an organization that has received funding from the Koch Foundations including at least $50,000 between 2005 and 2010. So we can see where he is coming from...from the munnnneeee..........with Stefan Molyneux
And then there is Stefan Molyneux. That’s the one everyone outside the Freedomain Radio “community” is supposed to see—the happy and witty libertarian gadabout who can make an argument against government so compelling, he can almost convert you to libertarianism on the spot.
Molyneux is so facile-minded and rhetorically deft, most interviewers can only nod their heads in appreciation as he pontificates........ a man who spouts absolute truth and honesty, yet reverts to serial lying when he's backed into a corner......

yokel

5th December 2015, 15:25

Ah ... Alex Epstein
So we can see where he is coming from...from the munnnneeee..........with Stefan Molyneux a man who spouts absolute truth and honesty, yet reverts to serial lying when he's backed into a corner......

How about we talk about the amount money and the agenda involved on the other side??

If you don't have facts directly related to man made CO2 climate change then you have nothing.

Yes Stefan Molyneux is not always right, and like most people he doesn't like being wrong.

But his arguments on climate change like the issues regrading computer modelling are solid, the models are wrong so they are usless.

Anyway lets hope this lie is all starting to unravel.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iTZl3CvWjvQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Woodman

5th December 2015, 15:29

Gullibility only applies when the government is involved:rolleyes: Aye Yokel?

husaberg

5th December 2015, 16:51

Ah ... Alex Epstein
So we can see where he is coming from...from the munnnneeee..........with Stefan Molyneux a man who spouts absolute truth and honesty, yet reverts to serial lying when he's backed into a corner......

Gullibility only applies when the government is involved:rolleyes: Aye Yokel?

Oddly enough, most people consider Yokel to be the smartest of all the KB conspiracy theorists (speaks volumes about the KB conspiracy theorists rather than Yokels intellect):laugh:

flyingcrocodile46

5th December 2015, 17:33

Ah ... Alex Epstein
So we can see where he is coming from...from the munnnneeee..........with Stefan Molyneux a man who spouts absolute truth and honesty, yet reverts to serial lying when he's backed into a corner......

The typical response of the ignorant but ever denying sheeple.

When presented with solid factual evidence that the climate hoaxers (cLIEmate pseudo-scientists) have consistently fudged criteria of analysis and falsified factual data (re-balancing the scales) to suit the narrative of 'cLIEmate change/Global warming'. (Unpalatable evidence that suggests that the nipple they have so eagerly and innocently chugged on, is in fact a 'cock').

Rather than succumb to a loss of face for being a cock sucker, or even attempting to debate the evidence, they reject it out of hand (swallow the load) then attempt to make themselves feel better about the niggling aftertaste by playing the player instead of the ball.

As if casting aspersions on the players off field character somehow negates the fact that the player's adversary (the cock in your mouth) has consistently cheated and refused to wear protection multiple times and that the only line traversed by the adversary runs from your arse to your mouth.

Don't be ashamed. Chug with pride.

Woodman

5th December 2015, 17:40

flyingcrocodile46

5th December 2015, 17:52

Maybe they just can't be assed replying to dickheads who go out of their way to find some info somewhere and post it up just to have an argument and then belittle people who may question them.

Otherwise know as 'boiling frogs' (Google it) too stupid to heed the warnings even when they are highlighted and shoved in their faces. Yeah! I understand the problem, but there are too many damaged brains out there to risk wasting time with. If shell shock doesn't work for them, that's too dam bad for them (or at least it will be when they finally realise that they have been played for the fools they are).

bogan

5th December 2015, 18:49

Otherwise know as 'boiling frogs' (Google it) too stupid to heed the warnings even when they are highlighted and shoved in their faces. Yeah! I understand the problem, but there are too many damaged brains out there to risk wasting time with. If shell shock doesn't work for them, that's too dam bad for them (or at least it will be when they finally realise that they have been played for the fools they are).

Perhaps you should google it, cos that terminology refers to slowly and gradually being exposed to a thing, not highlighted and shoved in faces, not shell shocked. I find a lot of conspiracy theorists fit the term very well.

flyingcrocodile46

5th December 2015, 19:19

Perhaps you should google it, cos that terminology refers to slowly and gradually being exposed to a thing, not highlighted and shoved in faces, not shell shocked. I find a lot of conspiracy theorists fit the term very well.

No need. It's just your comprehension that is out of whack.

Put a frog in hot water it will jump out to save it self, but put it in cold water and slowly bring it to the boil and it won't even register in the frogs head that it is in trouble. It will happily boil to death.

No matter how many times you whisper a warning in it's ear (via cranking up the temperature) the frog won't pay any attention. It will cook. May as well throw a hand grenade into the pot to try to wake the stupid fuckers up (like the shock of going from cold to hot in a big jump does). Maybe the blast will throw some of you out of the pot.

bogan

5th December 2015, 19:25

No need. It's just your comprehension that is out of whack.

Put a frog in hot water it will jump out to save it self, but put it in cold water and slowly bring it to the boil and it won't even register in the frogs head that it is in trouble. It will happily boil to death.

No matter how many times you whisper a warning in it's ear (via cranking up the temperature) the frog won't pay any attention. It will cook. May as well throw a hand grenade into the pot to try to wake the stupid fuckers up (like the shock of going from cold to hot in a big jump does). Maybe the blast will throw some of you out of the pot.

Just which bit of that did my comprehension miss? :laugh: you just rewrote what I did, then scrambled to make your piss poor metaphor fit a little bit better. These are the types of gradual changes indicative of conspiracy frogs finding reasons to stay in the pot.

Woodman

5th December 2015, 19:28

Put a frog in hot water it will jump out to save it self, but put it in cold water and slowly bring it to the boil and it won't even register in the frogs head that it is in trouble. It will happily boil to death.

Cheers man, thats actually a bloody great analogy for climate change deniers:niceone:

SPman

5th December 2015, 21:00

But his arguments on climate change like the issues regrading computer modelling are solid, the models are wrong so they are usless.

:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iTZl3CvWjvQ" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

SPman

5th December 2015, 21:22

The typical response of the ignorant but ever denying sheeple.

When presented with solid factual evidence that the climate hoaxers (cLIEmate pseudo-scientists) have consistently fudged criteria of analysis and falsified factual data (re-balancing the scales) to suit the narrative of 'cLIEmate change/Global warming'. (Unpalatable evidence that suggests that the nipple they have so eagerly and innocently chugged on, is in fact a 'cock').

Rather than succumb to a loss of face for being a cock sucker, or even attempting to debate the evidence, they reject it out of hand (swallow the load) then attempt to make themselves feel better about the niggling aftertaste by playing the player instead of the ball.

As if casting aspersions on the players off field character somehow negates the fact that the player's adversary (the cock in your mouth) has consistently cheated and refused to wear protection multiple times and that the only line traversed by the adversary runs from your arse to your mouth.

Don't be ashamed. Chug with pride.
I follow the science. If the science is sound, and it is, no matter how often the conspiracy theorists try and rewrite and reinterpret the basic laws of physics and chemistry and pass it off as solid factual evidence, I'll tend to believe the scientific method. Deniers will never change their minds, so the main argument is trying to point people, who don't know what's actually going on and are bombarded by claim and counterclaim, to places they can find out what's what.
AGW is not opinion, it's not dogma, it's not belief, it's a simple matter of physics and chemistry that is effecting the only planet we live on, in ways that will make it rather less comfortable to live on in the future -due mainly to mankind's bloody minded numptiness! I'm old enough, it's not going to affect me much, which is a pity....I'd like to see how things play out. Based on Paleogeograhical and climatical research, it's going to be fun!

SPman

5th December 2015, 21:37

safest 100k ever.

I asked an aquaintance about this, His reply....
The prize is relatively easy to make unwinnable,and do so fairly.
A data set containing noise of a particular type can be generated.
That data will by chance have trends in it.
Make sure the actual trends you add are so small they cant be detected reliably.
Muck around some more, and make sure the odds of doing it by chance are such that the $10 entry fee means it a very good bet you will have more than 100K in entry fees before someone would guess and your done.

To make the contest dishonest that can also be done if you want to and done in a way that is pretty much undetectable. (Well kinda)
Create an algorithm, a PseudoNRG (see the web there's recipes) then pick seed using a real RNG .Generate your test set. Check if its quite nasty as you got lucky and the trends tended to be added to random data sets with opposite trends. If it didn't, run it again with new seed. Stop when you have problem that cant be solved.

But as I said there is no need to do that. There are indeed limits to what size trends can be detected.

If you don't have apriori knowledge about what the earths temperature evolution might look like, and no sanity limits on what time scales, there might just be chaotic butterfly like effects. Then there is indeed no amount of evidence that will ever be sufficient to reach statistical conclusion about climate.

To keep his $100K, he just denies there are any limits on the size of the timescales for random noise due to factors we dont know about.
he just presupposes the existence of an ever larger magic variation by unknown causes, until all evidence fails to show AGGC forever.
That we in fact have such good handle on why so many climatic events happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g)is something he will ignore.

That we have direct physical evidence that CO2 blocks IR radiation, and that outgoing radiation has in fact changed over time. Is something he will ignore.

That if you do the physics of line by line analysis of the emission spectra and what happens when you add Co2 to the atmosphere, then you get a climate signal response similar to what happened.
All that^^^^ for instance is actually in the IPPC reports yet he claims there is no basis for expecting a roughly linear increase in temps since about 1980, due to the changes that occurred in CO2.
And while that is a low order approximation, the GCM provide comprehensive solid physical basis for the expectation of just what shape the Climate change will be.
One of the details that has been worked out in recent years si we know the models are bad at predicting just when EL Nino will change phases. The models do change phases periodically, and in a way that looks like the real pattern of El ninos and La ninas, but being chaotic processes with strong feed backs, it does not predict just when.

If you take climate model modelling all the basic Physics, and artificially force it to get the SST in one region of the pacific correct, then the rest of the model correctly simulates the rest of the climate, and then suddenly the model not only predicts the warming trend but now also matches the whole lot of the wiggles.

That demonstrates that the bit the models don't get right is the timing of El nino.
There is in fact extraordinary amounts of evidence justifying the shapes of the models used to fit Climate data.

Pretty sure arguing with him will be about as ineffectual as arguing with some of the nay sayers I have seen on this forum. So if you felt you must I couldn't suggest you shouldn't.
Just don't be surprised if the semi obvious happens.

TheDemonLord

5th December 2015, 21:49

I asked an aquaintance about this, His reply....

I'm interested - any additional info from your Aquaintance? in particular the about historical causes of climate changes

flyingcrocodile46

6th December 2015, 07:20

I follow the science. If the science is sound, and it is, no matter how often the conspiracy theorists try and rewrite and reinterpret the basic laws of physics and chemistry and pass it off as solid factual evidence, I'll tend to believe the scientific method. Deniers will never change their minds, so the main argument is trying to point people, who don't know what's actually going on and are bombarded by claim and counterclaim, to places they can find out what's what.
AGW is not opinion, it's not dogma, it's not belief, it's a simple matter of physics and chemistry that is effecting the only planet we live on, in ways that will make it rather less comfortable to live on in the future -due mainly to mankind's bloody minded numptiness! I'm old enough, it's not going to affect me much, which is a pity....I'd like to see how things play out. Based on Paleogeograhical and climatical research, it's going to be fun!

You are so full of shit that you going over the same crap over and over. It's not the science when you falsify (balance without disclosure) the facts. It is just simple lies told to manipulate the gullible (that's you).

flyingcrocodile46

6th December 2015, 07:27

I'm interested - any additional info from your Aquaintance? in particular the about historical causes of climate changes

Yeah! Sounds like he is very familiar with data manipulation. You know, the same sort of fine balancing and re-framing that the cLIEmate scientists have employed. Bet spam didn't ask him if the same sort of subtle manipulation can/was used to falsify the cLIEmate data (that has been debunked so often that they have to keep changing the name of the calamity).

A funny thing happened after the ice age. Fuck no! It's only started to happen now.

Jantar

6th December 2015, 09:27

Nope. Water is just a multiplier forcing agent. CO2 does the heavy lifting.....

I follow the science. ....
I have been away at a conference for the past week, so haven't been on here and missed this thread.

If you really followed the science then you would know that your first statement I have quoted is wrong. So very wrong. Water is a GHG in its own right. It works in a slightly different part of the spectrum to CO2, but with an overlap. Each molecule of H2O is not as efficient as CO2 in converting UV to IR, but as there is so much more H2O in the atmosphere it is the primary GHG, not CO2.

The multiplier theory you are alluding to is that as the atmosphere warms it has a capacity to hold more H2O, and hence multiply the effect that CO2 has on the warming. That theory has already been disproven as it neglected the fact that more H2O in the atmosphere also leads to more cloud cover, which leads to less energy reaching the earth's surface, so less warming. Rather than being a multiplier, H2O is a climate regulator.

Oh, that conference I was at was the New Zealand Hydrological conference where climate change and climate indices form a large part of the discussion.

Jantar

6th December 2015, 09:34

Woodman

6th December 2015, 09:57

Jantar

6th December 2015, 10:26

So is flyingcroc correct then?
I'm not sure which of flyingcroc's posts you are referring to. Overall, he is mostly right; there are a few items and/or numbers that I don't completely agree with, but they are ones that don't change the entire premise that AGW is overhyped both in amount and affect.

Voltaire

6th December 2015, 11:05

[QUOTE=Jantar;1130927230]Here are a few questions for the warmists:

1. If NZ was to immediately stop ALL CO2 emissions, by how much would that change NZ's projected temperature rise?

2. How much would we have to reduce NZ's CO2 emissions by to see any measurable change in NZ's temperature?

3. Which climate database shows the change in temperatures that most closely reflects the measured changes in rainfall and streamflows world wide?[/QUOTE

The polar ice is melting due to all the Penguins and Eskimo activity then...:innocent:

I imagine if NZ had 100 million people and an industry along the lines of China we might have some local impact.

The changing water temperatures of the Pacific are what is affecting NZ.

Jantar

6th December 2015, 12:03

The polar ice is melting due to all the Penguins and Eskimo activity then...:innocent:
Is it? That is new. I haven't read any papers that suggest penguins and/or Eskimo activity is causing polar ice to melt. Do you have a reference for that? In fact do you have a reference that shows that Antarctic ice is even decreasing at all? Do you have a reference that shows that Arctic ice volume has NOT been increasing over the past 4 years?

I imagine if NZ had 100 million people and an industry along the lines of China we might have some local impact.
But as we don't have 100 million people then are you saying we have no local impact? If that is the case then why is there such a push for NZ to cut emissions?

The changing water temperatures of the Pacific are what is affecting NZ.
I fully agree with you. In fact there is a paper being published in this months Journal of Hydrology NZ that makes just that point. (Taylor & Bardsley, 2015: Journal of Hydrology (NZ) 54 (2): 115-124 2015) :rolleyes:

flyingcrocodile46

6th December 2015, 13:53

Is it? That is new. I haven't read any papers that suggest penguins and/or Eskimo activity is causing polar ice to melt. Do you have a reference for that? In fact do you have a reference that shows that Antarctic ice is even decreasing at all? Do you have a reference that shows that Arctic ice volume has NOT been increasing over the past 4 years?

But as we don't have 100 million people then are you saying we have no local impact? If that is the case then why is there such a push for NZ to cut emissions?

I fully agree with you. In fact there is a paper being published in this months Journal of Hydrology NZ that makes just that point. (Jantar & Bardsley, 2015: Journal of Hydrology (NZ) 54 (2): 115-124 2015) :rolleyes:

So nice to see someone who actually understands the science enough to see the woods through the trees. Particularly the ones who are prepared to speak out publicly. Thank you for doing so.

For the record, I am as concerned as anyone about the effects we have on our planet and am happy enough to do what needs to be done in order to address those issues (The most serious of which appear to have been sidelined by the climate change sham:rolleyes:). But I refuse to be one of the (seemingly) 90% of gullible twats that blindly accept everything the UN (and many others) say without any attempt to fact check the views of those (that the UN & others) labelled as 'Climate change deniers'.

FFS the label 'Climate change deniers' itself should be enough to clue up anyone with any semblance of sense. What is there to deny when the climate changes daily? Nothing obviously. Therefore the assigned label is propagated only to serve as a way of discrediting those who disagree. It's a self serving name that categorises anyone who argues against even the most basic and irrelevant distorted fact, as a liar or a fool (because everyone knows that the climate changes). This is just one of the thousands of ways that these dishonest cunts stack the deck to make lazy non-thinking sheep carry on believing the twaddle they spout instead of being alarmed enough to actually start thinking and questioning that twaddle.

It's a similar but more grammatically correct ruse than the original FBI decision (during the Warren report on the Kennedy assassination) to propagate the label 'Conspiracy theorist' to discredit anyone who suggests that a conspiracy is at hand. However, in that instance it was not the words themselves that automatically condemn the wearer, but rather it was the FBI (and MSM) distortion of the meaning through abuse of use and reliance on the poor education of the sheeple that did the damage in that case. FFS do people not understand that over 90% of our history occurred directly as a result of conspiracies. People need to properly understand the meaning of the words and then look at history (and current activities) in a new light to understand what complete idiots they are when they interpret the words as an indication of absurdity (when it is the use of the words and denial of the prevalence of conspiracies that is absurd).

The media is the most guilty in this respect. Over the last 10+ years they have increasingly assigned labels to groups as soon as they appear. Labels that themselves literally condemn the wearer to guilt before anyone even starts to analyze any of the facts. Fucking presstitutes.

Woodman

6th December 2015, 15:05

husaberg

6th December 2015, 15:22

I fully agree with you. In fact there is a paper being published in this months Journal of Hydrology NZ that makes just that point. (Taylor & Bardsley, 2015: Journal of Hydrology (NZ) 54 (2): 115-124 2015) :rolleyes:

That company you work for Jantar, they still use all that SF6?:innocent:
That said pretty sure cooling and heating of the environment has been going on for years before humans existed.
The major drivers are mostly natural environmental factors.

flyingcrocodile46

6th December 2015, 15:27

Here are a few questions for the warmists:

1. If NZ was to immediately stop ALL CO2 emissions, by how much would that change NZ's projected temperature rise?

2. How much would we have to reduce NZ's CO2 emissions by to see any measurable change in NZ's temperature?

3. Which climate database shows the change in temperatures that most closely reflects the measured changes in rainfall and streamflows world wide?

As none of them are rising to the challenge (viagra shortage?) I figured I'd give it an honest 'guess'

1. 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% or thereabouts

2. 1000,000% or thereabouts Before meaningful measuring should even start. We would have to consume co2 at rates in the order of 1000,000% of our output in order to have any hope of making any difference (primarily because of our geographical location I suspect)

3. I honestly don't know and could never hope to achieve the same degree of reliable accuracy as in the above two answers through any amount of guesswork because I don't save links and have been reliably informed that I have a memory like a sieve (assuming that it is indeed one of those that has held data, some of which I may have observed).

Jantar

6th December 2015, 15:32

That company you work for Jantar, they still use all that SF6?:innocent:....
Most certainly. :bleh:

husaberg

6th December 2015, 15:36

Most certainly. :bleh:

Its pretty pricey stuff these days like $20,000 a gas cylinder here isn't it.
Yet cheap as chips in the US:psst:
http://www.concordegas.com/concorde-gas.aspx
Seems odd to me.

Yet maybe its because its According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, SF6 is the most potent greenhouse gas that it has evaluated, with a global warming potential of 23,900 times that of CO2
In Europe, SF6 falls under the F-Gas directive which ban or control its use for several applications. Since 1 January 2006, SF
SF6 is banned as a tracer gas and in all applications except high-voltage switchgear.
It was reported in 2013 that a three-year effort by the United States Department of Energy to identify and fix leaks at its laboratories in the United States such as the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, where the gas is used as a high voltage insulator, had been productive, cutting annual leaks by 35,000 pounds. This was done by comparing purchases with inventory, assuming the difference was leaked, then locating and fixing the leaks.
Sulfur hexafluoride is also extremely long-lived, is inert in the troposphere and stratosphere and has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 800–3200 years.[22] SF
6 is very stable (for countries reporting their emissions to the UNFCCC, a GWP of 23,900 for SF
6 was suggested at the third Conference of the Parties: GWP used in Kyoto protocol). Average global SF6 concentrations increased by about seven percent per year during the 1980s and 1990s, mostly as the result of its use in the magnesium production industry, and by electrical utilities and electronics manufacturers.
Given the low amounts of SF6 released compared to carbon dioxide, its overall contribution to global warming is estimated to be less than 0.2 percent.
wiki

Maybe that that hydro power isn't as green as its made out to be, especially when you add up the areas that used to be carbon sequestering prior to flooding with water then add in the methane produced as the flooded areas decompose.
Maybe we should tax you dirty polluting buggars some more:shifty:

Voltaire

6th December 2015, 15:41

husaberg

6th December 2015, 15:42

I'm sure it would a lot easier to sort out if US companies could make lots of money out of it, ya know like wars.
An aside, one of these missile's the RAF are using costs 100 000 quid each. Main feature is it can hit a moving vehicle...

Funny enough the inert SF6 powers the US and likely the rest of the worlds submarine torpedo's.............

flyingcrocodile46

6th December 2015, 15:47

Its pretty pricey stuff these days like $20,000 a gas cylinder here isn't it.
Yet cheap as chips in the US:psst:
http://www.concordegas.com/concorde-gas.aspx
Seems odd to me.

Maybe that that hydro power isn't as green as its made out to be, especially when you add up the areas that used to be carbon sequestering prior to flooding with water then add in the methane produced as the flooded areas decompose.
Maybe we should tax you dirty polluting buggars some more:shifty:

Is it used for spark suppression?

husaberg

6th December 2015, 15:52

Is it used for spark suppression?

Arc yes...................
I'm just teasing Jantar.

flyingcrocodile46

6th December 2015, 15:56

Arc yes...................
I'm just teasing Jantar.

I figured. But there is likely as much (or more) evidence to support that theory than the cLIEmate change conspiracy (to control and milk the herd)

Jantar

6th December 2015, 15:56

Arc yes...................
I'm just teasing Jantar.
:bleh::bleh::bleh:

Voltaire

6th December 2015, 16:12

I figured. But there is likely as much (or more) evidence to support that theory than the cLIEmate change conspiracy (to control and milk the herd)

Can you define " The Herd" ?

Are they the majority of population who just go about daily life?

Does posting links on the net make for non sheep well informed status?

flyingcrocodile46

6th December 2015, 16:31

Can you define " The Herd" ?

Are they the majority of population who just go about daily life?

Does posting links on the net make for non sheep well informed status?

99+% of the human population (incl me and others you may or may not think similar)

Yes - see above

No. Reading them may do, but is no certainty, and certainly not absolute.

Are you happy now I have answered your questions?

How is your combi and did you get the hub cap links I sent you?

mashman

6th December 2015, 16:48

Out of curiosity. Has anyone ever performed any research on areas (temperature, soil erosion etc...) pre and post tree cover over a large area?

Jantar

6th December 2015, 17:31

Out of curiosity. Has anyone ever performed any research on areas (temperature, soil erosion etc...) pre and post tree cover over a large area?
Varvara Vetrova from Landcare research is doing that study right now. Results are probably still a year away.

Ocean1

6th December 2015, 17:42

Varvara Vetrova from Landcare research is doing that study right now. Results are probably still a year away.

In the meantime, atmospheric conditions in the US have improved dramatically in the last few decades, on the back of a massive increase in forest acreage.

Sometimes empirical data doesn't need to be quantified.

mashman

6th December 2015, 17:47

Varvara Vetrova from Landcare research is doing that study right now. Results are probably still a year away.

Is that the first study anyone has produced along those lines?

And thanks.

mashman

6th December 2015, 17:48

In the meantime, atmospheric conditions in the US have improved dramatically in the last few decades, on the back of a massive increase in forest acreage.

Sometimes empirical data doesn't need to be quantified.

And production in Asia :laugh:

Voltaire

6th December 2015, 18:10

99+% of the human population (incl me and others you may or may not think similar)

Yes - see above

No. Reading them may do, but is no certainty, and certainly not absolute.

Are you happy now I have answered your questions?

How is your combi and did you get the hub cap links I sent you?

I fall into the 99%, I've left my run on being a mover and shaker too late.

So its really like being at the pub and talking shit without the beer :laugh:

From time to time I do a bit on my Kombi's, work seems to have cut into my time lately.:no:

Jantar

6th December 2015, 18:31

Is that the first study anyone has produced along those lines?

And thanks.
There have probably been many other studies as well. I recall reading one back in the mid 1970s that showed rainfall effects pre and post forestation, but don't remember the authors or any other details.

husaberg

6th December 2015, 18:56

Is that the first study anyone has produced along those lines?

And thanks.

if you are talking the amount of carbon sequestered, you don't need a study. You just need a calculator.
As its a carbon rich crop (ie timber)you just need to work out the total yield harvested (missus the waste product) divided by the yield per hectare, divided by the years until yield.
best case scenario is 30m3 per hectare per year; the national average is around 23m3 per hectare per year. (of timber)
You then use the calculator to work out the carbon content.
Here is a list of works carried out.
http://maxa.maf.govt.nz/forestry/pfsi/carbon-sequestration-rates.htm

Out of curiosity. Has anyone ever performed any research on areas (temperature, soil erosion etc...) pre and post tree cover over a large area?

Plenty of studies on erosion that's where the regional councils get the Resource consent rules from regarding the harvesting and plantings.

mashman

6th December 2015, 19:10

There have probably been many other studies as well. I recall reading one back in the mid 1970s that showed rainfall effects pre and post forestation, but don't remember the authors or any other details.

Thanks. I found this (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066063/full), but it seems to be more of a study of studies. Bummer that they can't really measure what they want to because of the background noise.

TheDemonLord

6th December 2015, 19:23

Sometimes empirical data doesn't need to be quantified.

I take issue with this - Can you give an example where Quantifying a data set leads to a negative outcome? Either the data supports a conclusion (in which case Quantifying it is just prudent statistical practice) or it doesn't (in which case Quantifying it helps us avoid drawing false conclusions)

Ocean1

6th December 2015, 19:40

And production in Asia :laugh:

Well why do you suppose the US forestry has grown so much? They gave up growing most of their own food even earlier than they gave up making most of their own shit.

But, however, exporting your gardening and labour doesn't mean you're exporting your environmental responsibilities, the cost of which should be built into the cost of production no matter the location.

Ocean1

6th December 2015, 19:47

I take issue with this - Can you give an example where Quantifying a data set leads to a negative outcome? Either the data supports a conclusion (in which case Quantifying it is just prudent statistical practice) or it doesn't (in which case Quantifying it helps us avoid drawing false conclusions)

When the purpose of the data is nominal and the effect of one of the possible variables is orders of magnitude greater than the next largest factor then the numbers are pretty much redundant.

And then, any meaningful manipulation of the actual numbers is only of any use to someone who actually speaks the language.

mashman

6th December 2015, 20:05

Well why do you suppose the US forestry has grown so much? They gave up growing most of their own food even earlier than they gave up making most of their own shit.

But, however, exporting your gardening and labour doesn't mean you're exporting your environmental responsibilities, the cost of which should be built into the cost of production no matter the location.

I dunno, coz they planted on land that wasn't being used since ages ago? Didn't "we" all?

Eeeeeeeyeuk, built into the cost of production sounds like it goes directly against environmental responsibility. Alas...

SPman

7th December 2015, 13:07

You are so full of shit that you going over the same crap over and over. It's not the science when you falsify (balance without disclosure) the facts. It is just simple lies told to manipulate the gullible (that's you).

You guys crack me up

Most of us are not scientists, engineers, or doctors. I have studied some science at Uni, enough to know that Scientific Method is one of the most rigorous of all human research and knowledge. Simply put, everyone checks everyone else's work.

That is the medical equivalent of having a cardiac surgeon, neurosurgeon, orthopedic surgeon, present in the room each time you visit the GP.
Not that science is perfect, but scientists are careful not to make mistakes, because they know other scientists will find them. Finding a mistake in another scientists work is about as good as it gets for a scientist.
Engineering appears more rigorous, but that is because things are over engineered.
But bridges don't generally fall down, so engineers must know what they are doing.
Similarly if I needed heart surgery I would get a cardiac surgeon, not Alan Jones or Rupert Murdoch.
If you understood Scientific Method you would know how scientific theories like Climate Change are formed and evaluated.

They are formed to explain real world measurements and results, and they are constantly evaluated by well qualified experts who have the detailed knowledge to carefully evaluate and conduct experiments to prove/disprove theories.
Now if 97% of engineers told me a bridge was under engineered and likely to fall down, I would not drive over it.

If the so called flaws in CC theory were real, how come they don't convince 97% of the scientific experts in this area, who are qualified to judge?

Oh yes, of course.....they're all "sucking off the public teat" and modify the data to suit their results!

:rolleyes:

Jantar

7th December 2015, 13:21

.......... If the so called flaws in CC theory were real, how come they don't convince 97% of the scientific experts in this area, who are qualified to judge?.........
:rolleyes:
Because that 97% you are so fond of quoting is a fallacy all on its own.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats#ixzz1A5px63Ax

"This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout."

The same survey was repeated at a Climate Sceptics conference 3 years ago and 100% answered the survey in the affirmative.

The questions were:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

iYRe

7th December 2015, 13:50

You guys crack me up

Now if 97% of engineers told me a bridge was under engineered and likely to fall down, I would not drive over it.

If the so called flaws in CC theory were real, how come they don't convince 97% of the scientific experts in this area, who are qualified to judge?

Oh yes, of course.....they're all "sucking off the public teat" and modify the data to suit their results!

:rolleyes:

So.. 97% (in a flawed survey the number is far far less than that.. its been discounted multiple times now) of (not actual) scientists, who stand to gain millions, if not billions of dollars in research grants (the climate "science" industry is worth billions now), and who are known to, and actually report on and state how much they manipulate the data to make it "conform to expected temperature levels", should be taken as authoritative over the thousands of other proper scientists from varying disciplines who have studied from their various fields and determined that even were it not manipulated, it cant possibly be true, since the "Science" shows something completely different?

Honestly, if this was not a government/UN sanctioned ponzi scheme, its perpetrators would be in prison for fraud by now.

TheDemonLord

7th December 2015, 14:14

You guys crack me up

Most of us are not scientists, engineers, or doctors. I have studied some science at Uni, enough to know that Scientific Method is one of the most rigorous of all human research and knowledge. Simply put, everyone checks everyone else's work.

That is the medical equivalent of having a cardiac surgeon, neurosurgeon, orthopedic surgeon, present in the room each time you visit the GP.
Not that science is perfect, but scientists are careful not to make mistakes, because they know other scientists will find them. Finding a mistake in another scientists work is about as good as it gets for a scientist.
Engineering appears more rigorous, but that is because things are over engineered.
But bridges don't generally fall down, so engineers must know what they are doing.
Similarly if I needed heart surgery I would get a cardiac surgeon, not Alan Jones or Rupert Murdoch.
If you understood Scientific Method you would know how scientific theories like Climate Change are formed and evaluated.

They are formed to explain real world measurements and results, and they are constantly evaluated by well qualified experts who have the detailed knowledge to carefully evaluate and conduct experiments to prove/disprove theories.
Now if 97% of engineers told me a bridge was under engineered and likely to fall down, I would not drive over it.

If the so called flaws in CC theory were real, how come they don't convince 97% of the scientific experts in this area, who are qualified to judge?

Oh yes, of course.....they're all "sucking off the public teat" and modify the data to suit their results!

:rolleyes:

I love the Scientific method - I truly do, and understand that Peer review is one of the most rigorous testing and checking methods known to us and the Basis for just about every single advancement in the last 200-300 years has been due to the Scientific method and Peer Review.

Unlike others - I'm not saying Humans haven't influenced the climate, I'm merely saying that at the last time I checked - the causes of global temperature changes (that are observable in the Fossil/geological record) are not fully understood and are the current subject of Scientific debate. In essence - this is your control test, if we could determine what the cause of previous global temp changes where, then we could determine definitively whether or not the Human factor was major, Minor, Contributing or catalyzing.

All of that is an aside for me - as stated, now is a good time to look at reducing our reliance on Fossil Fuels and coming up with better alternatives.

TheDemonLord

7th December 2015, 15:12

For all you scientific wizards on here explain the logic behing Carbon Credits and Taxes as to how money paid for them can actually stop global warming?

Lets assume the paper definition and not any cynical definitions:

Carbon Credits make traditional fuels less competitive, whilst making alternatives a more viable option. In theory when the Carbon Credits are paid, they are used to:

Plant forestry to offset the Emissions and fund R&D on technologies to reduce the output of existing technologies and refine emerging technologies to the point where they can be brought to market.

The Cynical explanation is that Carbon credits are one of the most retarded ideas ever - its getting Paul to pay Peter for the privledge of polluting, whereas the obvious solution is just to stop Paul polluting in the first place.

flyingcrocodile46

8th December 2015, 00:19

So.. 97% (in a flawed survey the number is far far less than that.. its been discounted multiple times now) of (not actual) scientists, who stand to gain millions, if not billions of dollars in research grants (the climate "science" industry is worth billions now), and who are known to, and actually report on and state how much they manipulate the data to make it "conform to expected temperature levels", should be taken as authoritative over the thousands of other proper scientists from varying disciplines who have studied from their various fields and determined that even were it not manipulated, it cant possibly be true, since the "Science" shows something completely different?

Honestly, if this was not a government/UN sanctioned ponzi scheme, its perpetrators would be in prison for fraud by now.

That is the most sickening thing about it. They get away with it because "97%" of people blindly rely on the MSM propaganda machine to keep them informed about stuff like this and they are subsequently exposed to sensationalized lies absent any retractions when the lies are exposed as lies. So, as far as the 97% are concerned the original lie is still the truth. The MSM are every bit as corrupted and complicit as the UN/IPCC. You only have to look at Spam to see how well it works for them.

SPman

8th December 2015, 01:36

That is the most sickening thing about it. They get away with it because "97%" of people blindly rely on the MSM propaganda machine to keep them informed about stuff like this and they are subsequently exposed to sensationalized lies absent any retractions when the lies are exposed as lies. So, as far as the 97% are concerned the original lie is still the truth. The MSM are every bit as corrupted and complicit as the UN/IPCC. You only have to look at Spam to see how well it works for them.
About time you stopped proselytizing the Alex Jones website:brick:

Scientific consensus is typically thought of as the agreement among the scientific community and most popularly expressed as the near-unanimous agreement between actively researching climate scientists. Numerous surveys of the climate science community have been conducted since the early 1990s to determine the level of consensus that humans were causing global warming. Over time, the percentage of climate scientists who agreed that humans are causing global warming has increased steadily, demonstrating a strengthening consensus
Two of the most recent studies adopting different methodologies have arrived at strikingly consistent results.
One study led by Peter Doran et al. in 2009 surveyed over 3,000 Earth scientists and found that for areas of expertise more relevant to climate change, the agreement about human-caused global warming was higher. For the most qualified experts, climate scientists actively publishing peer-reviewed research, there was 97% agreement.

This result is echoed in a separate study that compiled a database of scientists from public declarations on climate change, both supporting and rejecting the consensus. The publishing record of each scientist was then scanned to determine their level of expertise on climate change. Among scientists who had published peer- reviewed papers, there was 97% agreement. The authors tested the robustness of this result by employing different thresholds for the number of climate papers published. For varying thresholds, agreement varied between 97 and 98%, strikingly consistent with the Doran survey (Anderegg et al. 2010)
The consensus on climate change also manifests in the published statements of prestigious scientific organizations throughout the world. Academies of Science from many countries endorse the consensus view, as do many prestigious scientific organizations such as NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Royal Society of the UK.

But...of course, this is all lies,driven by greedy scientists in cahoots with scheming politicians (if only) who want to enslave the world and take all your money.......oh wait.....New Zealand rated no5 in "the most ignorant country" list....after Mexico, India, Brazil & Peru..........who'd a thunk it.

Jantar

8th December 2015, 02:12

....

Scientific consensus is typically thought of as the agreement among the scientific community and most popularly expressed as the near-unanimous agreement between actively researching climate scientists. Numerous surveys of the climate science community have been conducted since the early 1990s to determine the level of consensus that humans were causing global warming. Over time, the percentage of climate scientists who agreed that humans are causing global warming has increased steadily, demonstrating a strengthening consensus
Two of the most recent studies adopting different methodologies have arrived at strikingly consistent results.
One study led by Peter Doran et al. in 2009 surveyed over 3,000 Earth scientists and found that for areas of expertise more relevant to climate change, the agreement about human-caused global warming was higher. For the most qualified experts, climate scientists actively publishing peer-reviewed research, there was 97% agreement.

This result is echoed in a separate study that compiled a database of scientists from public declarations on climate change, both supporting and rejecting the consensus. The publishing record of each scientist was then scanned to determine their level of expertise on climate change. Among scientists who had published peer- reviewed papers, there was 97% agreement. The authors tested the robustness of this result by employing different thresholds for the number of climate papers published. For varying thresholds, agreement varied between 97 and 98%, strikingly consistent with the Doran survey (Anderegg et al. 2010)
The consensus on climate change also manifests in the published statements of prestigious scientific organizations throughout the world. Academies of Science from many countries endorse the consensus view, as do many prestigious scientific organizations such as NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Royal Society of the UK.[FONT=serif] ........

He surveyed over 10,000 earth scientists of whom 3146 replied. However he only selected 79 of those for his analysis. Of that 79, 76 agreed with question 1 and 75 out of 77 agreed with question 2. Thus the 97% is 75 responses out of more than 3000.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf

husaberg

8th December 2015, 16:24

Lets assume the paper definition and not any cynical definitions:

Carbon Credits make traditional fuels less competitive, whilst making alternatives a more viable option. In theory when the Carbon Credits are paid, they are used to:

Plant forestry to offset the Emissions and fund R&D on technologies to reduce the output of existing technologies and refine emerging technologies to the point where they can be brought to market.

The Cynical explanation is that Carbon credits are one of the most retarded ideas ever - its getting Paul to pay Peter for the privledge of polluting, whereas the obvious solution is just to stop Paul polluting in the first place.

Its far more retarded than that, as some of the worlds biggest polluters don't cough up a cent at all as they didn't sign up to it.
Negotiations were held in Lima in 2014 to agree on a post-Kyoto legal framework that would obligate all major polluters to pay for CO2 emissions. China, India, and the United States have all signaled that they will not ratify any treaty that will commit them legally to reduce CO2 emissions.

flyingcrocodile46

8th December 2015, 17:11

About time you stopped proselytizing the Alex Jones website:brick:

But...of course, this is all lies,driven by greedy scientists in cahoots with scheming politicians (if only) who want to enslave the world and take all your money.......oh wait.....New Zealand rated no5 in "the most ignorant country" list....after Mexico, India, Brazil & Peru..........who'd a thunk it.

Alex Jones eh! (spit). When trapped like the rat you are, you attempt to divert attention by false claims (lies). I guess it's to expect that when you develop a taste for being fed lies, that's all you are going to shit out the other end.:rolleyes:

No 5 eh! I can see by your determination to ignore the overwhelming truth of your gullibility, that you are pushing hard to get us to 4th place. Carry on.

yokel

8th December 2015, 17:56

About time you stopped proselytizing the Alex Jones website:brick:

But...of course, this is all lies,driven by greedy scientists in cahoots with scheming politicians (if only) who want to enslave the world and take all your money.......oh wait.....New Zealand rated no5 in "the most ignorant country" list....after Mexico, India, Brazil & Peru..........who'd a thunk it.

Not knowing something is not being ignorant you dam fool, not wanting to know or to ignore something is.
eg, how you ignore the fact that the claim "97% of climate scientists agree in global warming" is complete bullshit.

SPman

10th December 2015, 02:04

eg, how you ignore the fact that the claim "97% of climate scientists agree in global warming" is complete bullshit. Of course, you have conclusive proof that this is fact - 97% of published Climate Scientists surveyed - ostensibly the experts in their field, did not concur? I should, perhaps, believe the spiel put forth by The Heartland Institute, that runs on a similar vein to you and Jantar? Those well known guardians of the corporate good!

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field, surveyed here, support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, So, it's 97%.

No warming trend since the 50's???? Well, Hadcrut 4, global mean, 1955 - 2015 and satellite troposphere data from 1979 on, overlaid. Looks like a trend - .7C increase, to me.
Troposphere readings from satellites are lower than surface temps, but, the trends tend to correspond.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1955/to:2016/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2016/offset:0.20/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2016/trend/offset:0.20/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1955/to:2016/trend

Geez Flying Croc - you've excelled yourself in innovative vituperation on this thread - winding you up is definitely worth it.....such fun....:bleh:

No - I don't take anything at face value - I check it out as thoroughly as possible then make up my mind on the solid evidence available. If it's contrary to yours - tough! I could have similar rabid opinions on your..... beliefs, but it's not worth the wasted effort.

yokel

10th December 2015, 05:59

Of course, you have conclusive proof that this is fact - 97% of published Climate Scientists surveyed - ostensibly the experts in their field, did not concur? I should, perhaps, believe the spiel put forth by The Heartland Institute, that runs on a similar vein to you and Jantar? Those well known guardians of the corporate good!
So, it's 97%.

No warming trend since the 50's???? Well, Hadcrut 4, global mean, 1955 - 2015 and satellite troposphere data from 1979 on, overlaid. Looks like a trend - .7C increase, to me.
Troposphere readings from satellites are lower than surface temps, but, the trends tend to correspond.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1955/to:2016/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2016/offset:0.20/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2016/trend/offset:0.20/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1955/to:2016/trend

Geez Flying Croc - you've excelled yourself in innovative vituperation on this thread - winding you up is definitely worth it.....such fun....:bleh:

No - I don't take anything at face value - I check it out as thoroughly as possible then make up my mind on the solid evidence available. If it's contrary to yours - tough! I could have similar rabid opinions on your..... beliefs, but it's not worth the wasted effort.

Ok, so what's your definition or criteria of "conclusive proof" ?

iYRe

10th December 2015, 06:02

No - I don't take anything at face value - I check it out as thoroughly as possible then make up my mind on the solid evidence available. If it's contrary to yours - tough! I could have similar rabid opinions on your..... beliefs, but it's not worth the wasted effort.

The problem with this is, the evidence is fake, and the ones who have faked it do it blatantly, and even admit it.

Honestly, who ever believes a politician about anything?

Brett

10th December 2015, 06:22

So whats wrong with trying to lessen our impact on the planet/environment/climate?

This.^^^^^^^

Maybe "Climate change" or "man-made global warming" is indeed a load of bollocks. Let's put that to the side for now. Let's consider all of the OTHER ways that we are fucking the earth:

1) Plastic. Go to many large cities around the world and you will see plastic bags blowing around everywhere and old plastic bottles littered like stones. The ocean has FUCKING ISLANDS made out of plastic waste and we have various animal species dying from consuming plastic, becoming trapped in plastic etc. Plastic takes a very long time to break down organically, however breaks down into small particles rather quickly. We now have entire eco-systems and bio-chains that are "contaminated" with plastic particles.

2) Oil. We have entire chunks of certain third world nations that are devastated by oil contamination. In part due to accidents and leaks from oil extraction and conveyance equipment (leaking pipes etc) and from "criminal" activity where organised crime or in some cases poor locals are tapping into the oil pipes and creating massive messes. We have regular oil spills that decimate areas of coastline.

3) Contaminants from industrial processes. Toxins, heavy metals etc. that are not properly treated or captures and make their way into our ecosystem.

3) Mining. Brazil Samarco damn. Case in point. We have ruthless operators who focus only on their profitability and couldn't care less for the externalities that are pushed onto others. In this one instance (and there are MANY MANY MANY instances) there is the loss of life, the contamination of a HUGE tract of land and the contamination of the ocean with toxins and heavy metals.

4) Ocean resource consumption. We pillage our oceans for seafood. We fish unsustainably, in many instances the methods for the fishing have negative implications for the wider environment - seabeds getting fucked up, by-catch issues, reefs being mowed over.

5) Wildlife - so many species under threat that it would take me more time than I have to list them. Fueled by deforestation, traditional medicine trades, pet trades and poor agricultural practices. We will shortly lose several animal species that we are only just beginning to understand. Google search spindle cells and the research as it pertains to elephants, oceanic mammals, dogs, whales, dolphins. Fucking amazing, and we have only just begun to understand the depth of this.

6) Habitat destruction. In our drive to create resources such as palm oil or land for other forms of farming, we are mowing down huge areas of virgin land, irreversibly destroying huge amounts of flora and fauna. It is highly likely that we have made extinct species of creatures that we have not even discovered yet! Reefs which are home to huge numbers of our oceanic wildlife.

I could go on and on and on.

The stuff above makes me sound like a raging hippie. I am not. I am a capitalist businessman but also someone who loves our natural world and cares for protecting what we have on the only known life-sustaining planet in our known Universe. I believe that a balance can be struck between developing our living standards and improving our social wellbeing while also protecting that which is MOST valuable to us. Much of what we do cannot be undone.\

So yeah, maybe man-made climate change is a farce. Maybe it isn't. Regardless, we have reached (or passed) a point a no-return where we are doing irreversible damage to our world and we need to stop with the utmost expediency.

iYRe

10th December 2015, 07:57

No one is saying we dont need to care for the planet, and undo the damage human's do.. deforestation for example, or finding alternate fuels etc, however, stealing money off people on a planetary scale for a non existent "issue" is horrific.

Greenpeace came and asked me for money, and I asked them if the money I gave would be used for reforestation, saving endangered species, etc. They said "no, currently all our resources are going into climate change".
And so I said, can I give you money and specify what it is to be used for.. they said no. So I said no money for you then.

It's a scam, run by criminals, and they need to be stopped, and prosecuted. You cant just ignore it, they are stealing BILLIONS already, and it will become more. Eventually it will cost so much that no one will be able to pay... imagine what will happen then.

mashman

10th December 2015, 08:13

This.^^^^^^^

Maybe "Climate change" or "man-made global warming" is indeed a load of bollocks. Let's put that to the side for now. Let's consider all of the OTHER ways that we are fucking the earth:

1) Plastic. Go to many large cities around the world and you will see plastic bags blowing around everywhere and old plastic bottles littered like stones. The ocean has FUCKING ISLANDS made out of plastic waste and we have various animal species dying from consuming plastic, becoming trapped in plastic etc. Plastic takes a very long time to break down organically, however breaks down into small particles rather quickly. We now have entire eco-systems and bio-chains that are "contaminated" with plastic particles.

2) Oil. We have entire chunks of certain third world nations that are devastated by oil contamination. In part due to accidents and leaks from oil extraction and conveyance equipment (leaking pipes etc) and from "criminal" activity where organised crime or in some cases poor locals are tapping into the oil pipes and creating massive messes. We have regular oil spills that decimate areas of coastline.

3) Contaminants from industrial processes. Toxins, heavy metals etc. that are not properly treated or captures and make their way into our ecosystem.

3) Mining. Brazil Samarco damn. Case in point. We have ruthless operators who focus only on their profitability and couldn't care less for the externalities that are pushed onto others. In this one instance (and there are MANY MANY MANY instances) there is the loss of life, the contamination of a HUGE tract of land and the contamination of the ocean with toxins and heavy metals.

4) Ocean resource consumption. We pillage our oceans for seafood. We fish unsustainably, in many instances the methods for the fishing have negative implications for the wider environment - seabeds getting fucked up, by-catch issues, reefs being mowed over.

5) Wildlife - so many species under threat that it would take me more time than I have to list them. Fueled by deforestation, traditional medicine trades, pet trades and poor agricultural practices. We will shortly lose several animal species that we are only just beginning to understand. Google search spindle cells and the research as it pertains to elephants, oceanic mammals, dogs, whales, dolphins. Fucking amazing, and we have only just begun to understand the depth of this.

6) Habitat destruction. In our drive to create resources such as palm oil or land for other forms of farming, we are mowing down huge areas of virgin land, irreversibly destroying huge amounts of flora and fauna. It is highly likely that we have made extinct species of creatures that we have not even discovered yet! Reefs which are home to huge numbers of our oceanic wildlife.

I could go on and on and on.

The stuff above makes me sound like a raging hippie. I am not. I am a capitalist businessman but also someone who loves our natural world and cares for protecting what we have on the only known life-sustaining planet in our known Universe. I believe that a balance can be struck between developing our living standards and improving our social wellbeing while also protecting that which is MOST valuable to us. Much of what we do cannot be undone.\

So yeah, maybe man-made climate change is a farce. Maybe it isn't. Regardless, we have reached (or passed) a point a no-return where we are doing irreversible damage to our world and we need to stop with the utmost expediency.

Brilliant post. I think there are very few people who don't feel like that towards each and every point you have raised. And in the spirit of going after just that, and as much as you may not want to hear it, the problem is an entirely financial one:

1) Plastic. It's a mess because it is easy to discard that which you can get again. Why is it cheaper to ship bottled water than it is to shit the water and put it in some form of dispenser? That way you only need to make a bottle for the individual, and as that is their bottle, they will look after it. Replace plastic bags for hemp bags. The problem is that the bottle manufacturer would be put out of business pretty quickly as would the plastic bag manufacturer. This will also have an effect on those who supply the components for bottles and bags etc... Sure they could move into the Hemp market, but once people have their bags, why would they need to buy more? Under such conditions, divestment is only a short term measure.

2) Oil. It is stolen to sell. Money, plain and simple. If there's no need to steal it, then there's no need to tap into the pipeline in a way that leaves contamination for financial profit. Bye bye crime, bye bye climate issue.

3) Contaminents. They are a byproduct of the Supply and then generate a Demand economy. Production for productions sake i.e. to earn a living and create jobs etc... will never be sustainable. That's an entirely money related issue. We don't need advertising and marketing, just the best product for the job. That means that there'll be huge development using a vast range of chemicals, so as not to infringe on IP etc..., in areas where there's money to be made and any "fallout" will have already had the cost of destruction factored into the cost of production. Make what you need, not what you need to sell.

3) DAM! A dam that was built and maintained to cost.

4) Fish n shit = money.

5) The economy must take precedence over the ecology. Tis the sole reason that people doom the Greens to 3rd place.

6) Money money money money money money money.

Our solutions are derived from what can be afforded, not what we are capable of.

In fact, if you ditch the financial system, and produce what is needed and take a break from what is produced to sell, there would likely be enough of an environmental impact that future generations will find easy to measure :blip:. NOW, that is a fact :shifty:

TheDemonLord

10th December 2015, 08:45

Brilliant post. I think there are very few people who don't feel like that towards each and every point you have raised. And in the spirit of going after just that, and as much as you may not want to hear it, the problem is an entirely financial one:

Your post entirely presupposes that NOW will fix the issue - I'll skip the lengthy argument and reply with - it won't because reasons*.

That said - Brett has hit the nail so very squarely on the head.

*most of those reasons being humans.

mashman

10th December 2015, 09:35

Your post entirely presupposes that NOW will fix the issue - I'll skip the lengthy argument and reply with - it won't because reasons*.

That said - Brett has hit the nail so very squarely on the head.

*most of those reasons being humans.

I'm not saying that NOW will fix anything. I can see quite easily though that it would setup an environment that would better allow for us to address the issues as outlined by Brett.

Humans got us into this mess... t'would be fuckin idiotic to think that they wouldn't be able to get us out of it too. Then again, you'd have to trust people and you don't seem to have it in you.

iYRe

10th December 2015, 11:14

A few weeks ago the news reported that the govt wanted to spend $30B over the next 15 years to try and stop global warming. I bet if that happens due to the cost coming from us taxpayers NZ will grind to an economic halt. When I got approached by Greenpeace some years back I simply said I was not interested in saving the planet and they looked back in shock. About a year ago I got approached by a Climate Change Protestor and said the problem with what you want is you want all oil and coal to be left in the ground and he said no we dont but when I asked him what they do want to do as an alternative he had no answer. They are nothing but deluded fools in my opinion.

I concur, and it wont be just NZ. Then the UN will be asked to help, and who ever s=is in control of the UN, will.. well.. be in control

flyingcrocodile46

10th December 2015, 19:29

So nice to see someone who actually understands the science enough to see the woods through the trees. Particularly the ones who are prepared to speak out publicly. Thank you for doing so.

For the record, I am as concerned as anyone about the effects we have on our planet and am happy enough to do what needs to be done in order to address those issues (The most serious of which appear to have been sidelined by the climate change sham:rolleyes:). But I refuse to be one of the (seemingly) 90% of gullible twats that blindly accept everything the UN (and many others) say without any attempt to fact check the views of those (that the UN & others) labelled as 'Climate change deniers'.

FFS the label 'Climate change deniers' itself should be enough to clue up anyone with any semblance of sense. What is there to deny when the climate changes daily? Nothing obviously. Therefore the assigned label is propagated only to serve as a way of discrediting those who disagree. It's a self serving name that categorises anyone who argues against even the most basic and irrelevant distorted fact, as a liar or a fool (because everyone knows that the climate changes). This is just one of the thousands of ways that these dishonest cunts stack the deck to make lazy non-thinking sheep carry on believing the twaddle they spout instead of being alarmed enough to actually start thinking and questioning that twaddle.

Maybe "Climate change" or "man-made global warming" is indeed a load of bollocks. Let's put that to the side for now. Let's consider all of the OTHER ways that we are fucking the earth:

1) Plastic. Go to many large cities around the world and you will see plastic bags blowing around everywhere and old plastic bottles littered like stones. The ocean has FUCKING ISLANDS made out of plastic waste and we have various animal species dying from consuming plastic, becoming trapped in plastic etc. Plastic takes a very long time to break down organically, however breaks down into small particles rather quickly. We now have entire eco-systems and bio-chains that are "contaminated" with plastic particles.

2) Oil. We have entire chunks of certain third world nations that are devastated by oil contamination. In part due to accidents and leaks from oil extraction and conveyance equipment (leaking pipes etc) and from "criminal" activity where organised crime or in some cases poor locals are tapping into the oil pipes and creating massive messes. We have regular oil spills that decimate areas of coastline.

3) Contaminants from industrial processes. Toxins, heavy metals etc. that are not properly treated or captures and make their way into our ecosystem.

3) Mining. Brazil Samarco damn. Case in point. We have ruthless operators who focus only on their profitability and couldn't care less for the externalities that are pushed onto others. In this one instance (and there are MANY MANY MANY instances) there is the loss of life, the contamination of a HUGE tract of land and the contamination of the ocean with toxins and heavy metals.

4) Ocean resource consumption. We pillage our oceans for seafood. We fish unsustainably, in many instances the methods for the fishing have negative implications for the wider environment - seabeds getting fucked up, by-catch issues, reefs being mowed over.

5) Wildlife - so many species under threat that it would take me more time than I have to list them. Fueled by deforestation, traditional medicine trades, pet trades and poor agricultural practices. We will shortly lose several animal species that we are only just beginning to understand. Google search spindle cells and the research as it pertains to elephants, oceanic mammals, dogs, whales, dolphins. Fucking amazing, and we have only just begun to understand the depth of this.

6) Habitat destruction. In our drive to create resources such as palm oil or land for other forms of farming, we are mowing down huge areas of virgin land, irreversibly destroying huge amounts of flora and fauna. It is highly likely that we have made extinct species of creatures that we have not even discovered yet! Reefs which are home to huge numbers of our oceanic wildlife.

I could go on and on and on.

The stuff above makes me sound like a raging hippie. I am not. I am a capitalist businessman but also someone who loves our natural world and cares for protecting what we have on the only known life-sustaining planet in our known Universe. I believe that a balance can be struck between developing our living standards and improving our social wellbeing while also protecting that which is MOST valuable to us. Much of what we do cannot be undone.\

So yeah, maybe man-made climate change is a farce. Maybe it isn't. Regardless, we have reached (or passed) a point a no-return where we are doing irreversible damage to our world and we need to stop with the utmost expediency.

Yup! Like I said, they have used this farce to hijack attention away from the very real issues. Issues that we actually can do something about. We certainly can't change the fucking climate. Suckering us with this CO2 garbage is simply a distraction to keep us busy focusing on something that serves to pacify our desire to do better by our planet. All done without actually focusing on the tangible things that can be changed (at great cost to the industries who are making the biggest real mess). .... AND while they are fucking us in the arse (polluting our world and sucking money out of us for the by products that we use) laughing at us, they now want to fuck us in the mouth by MAKING US PAY EVEN MORE FOR THE PRIVILEGE of pretending that something positive is going to be done about it.

Jim Steele was the Director of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus of San Francisco State University from 1985 to 2009. Having taught courses on plants, natural sciences, bird banding and bird identification, his research into the causes of the declines in local bird populations led him to the understanding that natural climate cycles and landscape changes were causing disruptions of wildlife populations. He went on to author a book, Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism (http://www.amazon.com/Landscapes-Cycles-Environmentalists-Journey-Skepticism/dp/1490390189/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8), and a website, LandscapesAndCycles.net (http://landscapesandcycles.net) where he explores how faulty, over-hyped C02-driven climate change fears are misdirecting environmental researchers and activists away from the true cause of environmental disruption. SHOW NOTES
Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism (http://www.amazon.com/Landscapes-Cycles-Environmentalists-Journey-Skepticism/dp/1490390189/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8)
LandscapesAndCycles.net (http://landscapesandcycles.net)
Fabricating Climate Doom: Hijacking Conservation Success in the UK to Build Consensus (http://landscapesandcycles.net/hijacking-conservation-success-in-the-uk.html)
Reasons to Petition Congress to Investigate USGS Polar Bear Models (http://landscapesandcycles.net/petition-to-investigate-usgs-polar-bear-models.html)
No Consensus On Antarctic Climate Change (http://landscapesandcycles.net/antarctic-climate-change-all-natural-.html)

Hey Spamn! You keep waffling on accusing the credible scientists who debunk the cLIEmate data such as your 97% bullshit claim (that the authors themselves now admit was a biased sham and which you seem to refuse to accept :rolleyes:) of being "Pseudo-scientists". Time for you to be educated as to the real meaning of the term, from 'Karl Popper' (the man who first coined the term back in the late 60's).

Prepare to be shocked as you watch and learn how your use of the term is as big a corruption as those which your heroes (the real "Pseudo-scientists") make when they falsify the data that you so haplessly suck up as fact.

Karl Popper famously said, “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.” So what do you make of the theory that catastrophic manmade CO2-driven “climate change” can account for harsher winters and lighter winters, more snow and less snow, droughts and floods, more hurricanes and less hurricanes, more rain and less rain, more malaria and less malaria, saltier seas and less salty seas, Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions? Popper gave a name to “theories” like this: pseudoscience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huKY5DzrcLI&feature=em-uploademail

SHOW NOTES FOR FACT CHECKING
Climate change makes for shorter winters (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/95188/20151016/winter-will-be-shorter-over-the-next-century-thanks-to-global-warming.htm)

Climate change makes for harsher winters (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/26/global-warming-has-doubled-risk-harsh-winters-eurasia-research-finds)
Climate change means less snow (https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-the-independent.pdf)
Climate change means more snow (http://phys.org/news/2011-03-global-snowstorms-scientists.html)
Climate change causes droughts in California (http://earthsky.org/earth/has-global-warming-worsened-california-drought)
Climate change causes floods in Texas and Oklahoma (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/sep/02/global-warming-intensified-the-record-floods-in-texas-and-oklahoma)
Climate change makes wet places wetter and dry places drier… (https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms)
…except when it makes wet places dryer… (http://www.earthday.org/blog/2015/07/15/unusual-drought-thailand-makes-high-vulnerability-climate-change-evident)
…and dry places wetter (http://mashable.com/2015/10/05/south-carolina-floods-global-warming/)
Climate change causes more hurricanes (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-hurricane-warming.html)
Climate change causes less hurricanes (http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/global-warming-means-fewer-but-more-powerful-hurricanes/)
Climate change causes more rain (but less water) (http://www.livescience.com/496-irony-global-warming-rain-water.html)
Climate change causes less rain (http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040401/full/news040329-10.html)
Climate change decreases the spread of malaria (http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-wilts-malaria-1.9695)
Climate change increases the spread of malaria (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/climate-change-increasing-malaria-risk-disease-spreads-higher-altitudes-1439262)
Climate change makes San Francisco foggier (http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Get-ready-for-even-foggier-summers-3226235.php)
Climate change makes San Francisco less foggy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/7243579/Fog-over-San-Francisco-thins-by-a-third-due-to-climate-change.html)
Climate change causes duller autumn leaves (http://www.livescience.com/39820-climate-change-fall-leaves.html)
Climate changes causes more colourful autumn leaves (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/nov/18/thisweekssciencequestions1)
Climate change makes for less salty seas (http://www.livescience.com/3883-global-warming-sea-salty.html)
Climate change makes for saltier seas (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/oct/27/climate-change-water)
Climate change causes Antarctica to lose land ice (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/12/antarctic-ice-melting-so-fast-whole-continent-may-be-at-risk-by-2100)
Climate change causes Antarctica to gain land ice (http://www.wired.com/2015/11/antarcticas-ice-gains-dont-mean-global-warming-is-over/)
Climate change makes the earth hotter… (http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/ipcc_feb2007.html)
…unless the earth isn’t getting hotter… (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/04/the-robust-pause-resists-a-robust-el-nio-still-no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-9-months/)
…in which case climate change can explain that, too. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3155568/Have-seas-HIDING-true-scale-climate-change-Nasa-report-claims-global-warming-pause-never-happened.html)
Science as Falsification (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html)

yokel

10th December 2015, 19:46

flyingcrocodile46

10th December 2015, 20:16

I'm not saying that NOW will fix anything. I can see quite easily though that it would setup an environment that would better allow for us to address the issues as outlined by Brett.

Humans got us into this mess... t'would be fuckin idiotic to think that they wouldn't be able to get us out of it too. Then again, you'd have to trust people and you don't seem to have it in you.

"A" mess...

yokel

10th December 2015, 20:34

9 billion euros down the shitter

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/A3h9BrDFsz4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Voltaire

11th December 2015, 19:26

Is climate change the planets way of saying " Fuck off"

iYRe

11th December 2015, 19:28

Is climate change the planets way of saying " Fuck off"

umm, no.. its on the rag.

Voltaire

11th December 2015, 20:11

umm, no.. its on the rag.

sniff of an oily rag:rolleyes:

TheDemonLord

12th December 2015, 11:07

Then again, you'd have to trust people and you don't seem to have it in you.

Would that be like how you trust the Government, Aye Mashman? ;)

mashman

12th December 2015, 16:10

"A" mess...

Same people involved, same mess... and a resolution but a mere decision away ;).

Would that be like how you trust the Government, Aye Mashman? ;)

Hence why I don't vote numbnutz. Bet you vote :nya: Tell you what though. Let's get extreme and say that if the right or left propose RBE as their policy going forward, I will trust them enough to give them my vote. Can you tell what it is yet?

TheDemonLord

12th December 2015, 16:48

Hence why I don't vote numbnutz. Bet you vote :nya: Tell you what though. Let's get extreme and say that if the right or left propose RBE as their policy going forward, I will trust them enough to give them my vote. Can you tell what it is yet?

I don't vote either* - shows how what you think you know of me and what you actually know are two separate magisteria.

*The right to vote however is sacred - my choice not to vote is based on the lack of true leaders in the current political climate and fundamental disagreements with both the Right and Left - but that is a separate discussion.

mashman

12th December 2015, 17:05

I don't vote either* - shows how what you think you know of me and what you actually know are two separate magisteria.

*The right to vote however is sacred - my choice not to vote is based on the lack of true leaders in the current political climate and fundamental disagreements with both the Right and Left - but that is a separate discussion.

:killingme button pushed ;)

No discussion there. I agree :D

yokel

15th December 2015, 19:58

The political angle.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/epqdW6HQYes" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

seattle smitty

18th December 2015, 11:39

Climate change deniers might consider organizing their "reputable scientific experts" to pay a visit to the strategic planning labs of the United States Navy, where very serious men are war-gaming potential military confrontations likely to occur as the arctic seas become ever more ice-free. If not the U.S. Navy, try selling your fantasies to the Royal Navy, any of the Scandanavian navies, the Chinese navy, or the Russian navy. After the officers and scientists there stop rolling their eyes, you will be politely escorted off the property. The Russians might be a little less polite; year-around access to their arctic ports has always been a dream, and is now becoming reality.

After you deniers all get back in your cars, you could then drive to the offices of various oil companies which, even while the price of their commodity is currently very low, are planning where they will try to stake claims to undersea drilling sites in the arctic as those open up (and as prices go up again), and also figuring how they can get their govenments to provide them with some free naval muscle. Again, in the usual way normal adults handle lunatics, they will be all smiles as they gently ease you out the door.

Finally, you might try visiting the biggest overseas shipping companies in China, where oceanographers and climatologists and marine architects and professional seamen are deciding how they can best take advantage of that old dream of a Northwest Passage, which is near to being a practical reality.

The Chinese shippers might not waste a lot of time or smiles on you, once they have puzzled out what the hell you are talking about. But whatever you do after seeing them, do not try dropping in on any university's glaciology department. The glaciologists are watching their careers melt away before their eyes, and if they find out who you are, you could suffer a very aggravated ass-kicking as you beat your retreat.

No, better you stay with talking about your "evidence" to others with similarly reputable evidence . . . for their personal alien encounters, their "research" on Nessie/Bigfoot/Yeti, their 9/11 Jewish conspiracies, their new "findings" about the Bermuda Triangle, their disclosures of the SECRET POWER (!!!) of the world-controlling Rothschilds/Illuminati/Bilderberg/Masons, oh, and their affirmation of the never-happens predictions of Nostradamus, the Mayan calendar, and all the fundamentalist Bible (and Koran) thumpers ranting about the End-of-Days being imminent (or so they have been telling us . . . for 2000 years now).

After all, one or two scientifically-educated cranks have been found in support of every one of those knuckle-headed notions listed above.

And meanwhile, it appears that in my country maybe two-thirds of the official candidates for the highest political office in the land have pronounced themselves doubtful about the phenomenon of species evolution by natural selection, preferring faith-based science, faith-based economics, faith-based foreign policy. With results that have been disastrous already.

SPman

22nd December 2015, 16:07

Leave them all to their little delusions - their faith based and opinionated "science" and beliefs..."Their ...I can't light a fire so it's impossible for humans to affect the climate...attitudes"

It's not worth the hassle.

After all.....

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa36/JonL_photo/a1e70481-5e37-4d47-b758-24dcff45c495_zpssaziqzmz.jpg (http://s198.photobucket.com/user/JonL_photo/media/a1e70481-5e37-4d47-b758-24dcff45c495_zpssaziqzmz.jpg.html)

yokel

22nd December 2015, 18:31

Leave them all to their little delusions - their faith based and opinionated "science" and beliefs..."Their ...I can't light a fire so it's impossible for humans to affect the climate...attitudes"

It's not worth the hassle.

After all.....

Yes, you're keeping good company HAHA!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tmPzLzj-3XY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

mashman

18th April 2016, 12:17

Climate Cheats (http://morganfoundation.org.nz/new-report-climate-cheats/)

"Today we are launching a new report called Climate Cheats. It shows that New Zealand was by far the biggest buyer of fraudulent foreign carbon credits from the Ukraine. Now the Government is handing over these fraudulent credits to meet our international emissions reduction targets."

mashman

18th April 2016, 15:36

The emissions tax itself is fraud and there should have been a referendum on how many NZers believe in it to stop Global Warming.

They already had their referendum. It's called the election.

mashman

18th April 2016, 22:48

Bill Gates: Only Socialism Can Save the Climate, ‘The Private Sector is Inept’ (http://usuncut.com/climate/bill-gates-only-socialism-can-save-us-from-climate-change/)

SPman

19th April 2016, 14:31

"the private sector is inept".........
Try telling that, to died in the wool neoliberals :rofl:

(If you don't know what a neoliberal is.......try this http://www.monbiot.com/2016/04/15/the-zombie-doctrine/) (http://www.monbiot.com/2016/04/15/the-zombie-doctrine/)

mashman

19th April 2016, 17:36

carbonhed

20th April 2016, 12:04

Bill Gates: Only Socialism Can Save the Climate, ‘The Private Sector is Inept’ (http://usuncut.com/climate/bill-gates-only-socialism-can-save-us-from-climate-change/)

The good thing is that you don't have to read the leftie shitheads version of what Bill Gates said... you can simply read exactly what Bill Gates said here...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/

seems perfectly reasonable to me.

ETA. Of course it bears no resemblance to the leftie shitheads version of what was said.

mashman

20th April 2016, 14:24

The good thing is that you don't have to read the leftie shitheads version of what Bill Gates said... you can simply read exactly what Bill Gates said here...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/

seems perfectly reasonable to me.

They both say the same thing :yawn:

carbonhed

20th April 2016, 16:09

They both say the same thing :yawn:

The time out of the workforce, sitting in your rocking chair, clutching your bong and muttering to yourself has not been good for your limited mental acuity old fossil.

mashman

20th April 2016, 16:28

The time out of the workforce, sitting in your rocking chair, clutching your bong and muttering to yourself has not been good for your limited mental acuity old fossil.

Or I read what was said and understood it despite any political leaning that someone else might project into either version :yawn:

carbonhed

20th April 2016, 17:32

Or I read what was said and understood it despite any political leaning that someone else might project into either version :yawn:

So DARPA is socialism?

So even though he runs through the delusions of green energy and the nagging little problems of intermittency and storage we should all become Germany? Christ he even specifically mentions the stupidities of the energiewende.

My favourite bit from your shitty little article was how China had blasted from 3 megawatts to 21000 megawatts of solar generation capacity in a little over 12 years. Whippy shit. China consumes 5.4 billion Mw hours per annum. So solars gone from 0% to 0% in twelve years :laugh:

Did anybody ever even suggest that research into new forms of energy should be led by the private sector? Imagine if we'd put all the tottering hundreds of billions pissed away into wind and solar into research. Fuck the Greens and socialism comrade.

mashman

20th April 2016, 17:43

So DARPA is socialism?

So even though he runs through the delusions of green energy and the nagging little problems of intermittency and storage we should all become Germany? Christ he even specifically mentions the stupidities of the energiewende.

My favourite bit from your shitty little article was how China had blasted from 3 megawatts to 21000 megawatts of solar generation capacity in a little over 12 years. Whippy shit. China consumes 5.4 billion Mw hours per annum. So solars gone from 0% to 0% in twelve years :laugh:

Did anybody ever even suggest that research into new forms of energy should be led by the private sector? Imagine if we'd put all the tottering hundreds of billions pissed away into wind and solar into research. Fuck the Greens and socialism comrade.

So, you're not in favour of sustainability then.

carbonhed

20th April 2016, 18:31

So, you're not in favour of sustainability then.

Did you miss the bit about tottering billions in research? I'm all in favour of that.

If solar and wind are your version of sustainabilty prepare to starve to death along with billions of others.

ETA Actually screw it. WTF am I doing discussing sustainability with a fat arsed parasite like you? Exit stage left.

mashman

20th April 2016, 18:46

Did you miss the bit about tottering billions in research? I'm all in favour of that.

If solar and wind are your version of sustainabilty prepare to starve to death along with billions of others.

They are A version of sustainability. As billy boy says, the money just ain't there... and by the time we get around to finding something super dooper we'll be nowhere nearer coz, given what you're alluding too, we'll still be on coal and gas. Likely also to be the case will be "us" having frittered away the very same resources that we could have used on wind/solar on something with far less utility on the sustainability front.

Surely you're not advocating the usual thumb up arse approach of doing nothing until ALL of the R&D is done?

Voltaire

25th April 2016, 08:20

" one in a hundred year events going to happen annually"

Why do they keep making this stuff up.......:innocent:

" nothing to do with us says the 7 billion people interviewed"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/climate-change-global-warning-europe-extreme-weather-study-a6998516.html

flyingcrocodile46

24th September 2017, 18:15

Putting mans insignificant influence on climate change to bed.

Finally, the original scientists (panel of 10) who predicated the fraud about Co2 being the primary cause of climate change have fessed up that they fucked up. The same scientists who's original studies underwrote all the carbon data that the IPCC used in all their various members failed climate change models and successful carbon tax fraud schemes.

When you get to the bones of their heavily criticized poorly constructed original assumptions about the causes of climate change it is revealed that these "scientists" only attributed 0.1% effect to the sun??????. The same sun that basically is our climate change thingy, you know winter, spring, summer and autumn etc. One tenth of 1%. Seriously?

It turns out that the publication of hundreds of solar forcing studies by honest scientists (who the MSM consistently persecuted and ridiculed as climate change deniers) have forced the original "scientists" to concede how badly they underestimated the sun. Those same ten "scientists" have now released a new study confirming the true extent of the previously underestimated effects of the sun and the fact that they overestimated the Co2 factor by a factor of 50% or more.

More importantly, they over estimated the impact of man made C02 (which is only a small percentage of the overall Co2 emission problem) by a whopping factor of 200 to 300%.

Poof goes the Carbon tax justification.

Of note is the fact that every single one of the thousands of scientific gloom and doom models, studies, reports that purport to measure the impact of man made Co2 are 200 to 300% wrong and nothing more than "scientifically proven" quackery.

I wonder how long it will take for this climate change fraud to filter down through to us suckers who have resigned ourselves to pay our carbon sinner taxes. Will it even be disclosed? After all, this is the founding seed of the NWO tax base that we are talking about here. I bet the MSM and IPCC will carry on with their climate change lies all the same.

Now you know, will you just go along with it anyway?

The story https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS0qLhqaZDM

Carbon Effect Paper: https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...

(https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=jWaUFYZuVvamyZU4TnagqFIhKvl8M TUwNjMxMzI3MUAxNTA2MjI2ODcx&event=video_description&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fngeo%2Fjournal%2F vaop%2Fncurrent%2Ffull%2Fngeo3031.html)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS0qLhqaZDM (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=jWaUFYZuVvamyZU4TnagqFIhKvl8M TUwNjMxMzI3MUAxNTA2MjI2ODcx&event=video_description&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fngeo%2Fjournal%2F vaop%2Fncurrent%2Ffull%2Fngeo3031.html)
(https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=jWaUFYZuVvamyZU4TnagqFIhKvl8M TUwNjMxMzI3MUAxNTA2MjI2ODcx&event=video_description&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fngeo%2Fjournal%2F vaop%2Fncurrent%2Ffull%2Fngeo3031.html)

SPman

28th September 2017, 01:50

What a load of fucking shite!

jonbuoy

28th September 2017, 18:43

Renewables aren't the only answer, but household appliance and lighting power requirements are dropping. I've been thinking about adding a 12v DC system in the house powered by a solar cell and battery arrangement. I can't run a washing machine off it but I could easily run my router wifi ,domestic lighting, phone and iPad charger off it.

Renewables are being taken as a serious threat by oil gas and coal companies.

flyingcrocodile46

29th September 2017, 15:35

There is a Nugget of truth in that, I will concede, however Science isn't predicated on trust, it is predicated on Evidence - and one should be able to pick an experiment done by either the Corporate Scientist or the Government scientist and repeat the tests to verify the conclusions.

Although it may take some time, the bogus studies are eventually found to be just that, whilst the legitimate ones stand up to the rigorous scrutiny of Peer Review.

Exactly. But unfortunately peer reviews and reproduction of results occurs in less than 10% of published studies because no one pays to to do them. Even then, it is often too late to to reverse the long term brain damage and faulty programing that results from the sheeple's initial and shameful eagerness to consume trending (propagandised) lies that the msm and its owners present.

Case in point, the news release from the original panel of 10 scientists who told the world that man made Co2 is the primary cause of global warming (which had to be re badged as "cLiemate change"). The same scientists who's original studies underwrote all the carbon data that the IPCC used in all their failed climate change models and successfully underpinned the carbon tax fraud schemes. Nobody wants to believe it, because they are so thoroughly brainwashed they actually want it to be true, rather than admit that the titty that they enthusiastically sucked was actually (as some of us accurately surmised) a cock in disguise.

Admittedly the gods of GW have made it easy for the cock addicts to deny by using very vague statements (unlike myself), but the "supplementary documents" (their un-summarised actual report conclusions) are linked on the page for those who are able to understand them.

I'll be the first to admit to less than 10% comprehension of the specifics, but it is clear enough that they have made big adjustments to their initial assumptions around C02 and non C02 radiant forcing (upon which mans contribution to Co2 radiant forcing was based), and that those changes indicate an approx 1 deg change (yes less than 1 deg) from the original guess that they made. However, that is only my uneducated take from my own perusal.

The specifics of the study conclusion can only really be identified by climate scientists (Like Ben Davidson who presents the recently linked video). There is an equally obtuse follow up by "the scientists" on the Oxford website where they are trying to undo some of the ensuing damage that has resulted from some extreme and uneducated interpretations of their revised study conclusions. These guys are definitely not going to say 'straight out' that it has completely turned the man made GW senario on its head as they are far too invested to do so. But the lesser known scientists who put them under pressure to re-evaluate their conclusions (like Ben Davidson) will present the facts for those that have open minds.