Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Climate Scientists got it wrong.


  • Please log in to reply
201 replies to this topic

#101 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,710 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 13 January 2020 - 19:59

Picking random examples doesn't actually mean much, climate is not weather and vice versa, and especially where glaciers are concerned, global climate is not local weather.

 

However, for the most parts glaciers are retreating globally, possibly because the global temperature has warmed slightly, but can you exercise your mind and think of two other reasons why they might be retreating (not all might be retreating for the same reasons)? Unless you can, then you are just blurting talking points and not providing proof of anything.

 

 

here's a bit of fun 

https://www.ecowatch...2644665325.html



Advertisement

#102 Zoe

Zoe
  • Member

  • 3,393 posts
  • Joined: July 99

Posted 13 January 2020 - 20:04

So we have moved from "glaciers shrinking? Humbug!" to "oh well, but this is just a local weather phenomenon".

 

So what are your explanations for the shrinking of global ice?



#103 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,826 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 13 January 2020 - 22:08

 I'm afraid Neil-Old-Mate - you are committing the same crime as those who KNEW the sun orbited etc. etc.:   You (and your like-minded Warmist mates)   KNOW  that the dreaded CO2  from burning the unmentionable COAL  is causing all the problems.    

KC - Old mate - c'mon - I know you frequently type with a large bulge in the side of your face where your tongue is trying to escape through your cheek - but - this paragraph borders on the idiotic. Neil (and his warmist mates) are speaking from a very strong scientific consensus. The scientific evidence supporting your view is almost non-existent (as with flat earth, anti-vax etc)



#104 NRoshier

NRoshier
  • Member

  • 460 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 13 January 2020 - 23:15

 I'm afraid Neil-Old-Mate - you are committing the same crime as those who KNEW the sun orbited etc. etc.:   You (and your like-minded Warmist mates)   KNOW  that the dreaded CO2  from burning the unmentionable COAL  is causing all the problems.   

 

 But we are debating a possible less than  1 degree rise in the global temperature  (which, I have always said, may or may not be happening - I don't know)  - the current heat wave (drought, bushfires etc.) we have been getting  temps  10, 15 or more degrees over this.  By what mechanism does a <1 degree  rise in the  general temperature cause such huge  rises as we have had lately?   I will answer for you -  "I have no idea - I just KNOW that that evil CO2 is responsible".   

 

 Of course the sane answer is that the IOD and the lack of shading from the monsoonal  rainclouds has allowed superheating of the interior of the country.   So I come back to my original  question above -  by what possible mechanism could a bit of excess CO2  affect the IOD/monsoon etc.   If you can think up an even vaguely credible  mechanism - I will be forever impressed by your intelligence.  

  ("I  just KNOW that that bloody CO2 is the culprit - everybody KNOWS that"  is not an admissable answer).    

 

 On a general note about human psychology  -   I have been hearing the same reasoned argument  "Everybody KNOWS that"  ever since I was in primary school  (- usually speculation about female anatomy- turned to be wrong invariably).   Essentially the argument is still the same - but from adults (allegedly)  now.   And the other odd thing is that the people who believe these strange things insist  that other people believe the same - just as they did in the 16th century about the sun etc.    Back then, you were burned at the stake if you didn't "believe"  - similar things are happening  now with people losing their jobs etc. if they don't believe in GW etc.   

 

 Still got a problem with those bloody apostrophes Neil?  

Since you prefer not to read google scholar I'll leave this here: https://7news.com.au...entury-c-641946

I would encourage you to read more, particularly about the level and timing of temperature rises and the effects on biological systems. Sure for you in your comfortable house and car you can just turn up the AC, but read into what a 1.5-2dec C change in sea temp will do to the barrier reef.

If you want to 'win' an argument then perhaps you can impress us with some scientific proof that supports your thoughts (again google scholar is free on the same computer you read this on) and not questions that you feel are unanswerable. Otherwise it's simply 'you cannot answer this so I'm right!!' 

BTW you can easily ask such questions of the CSIRO/BOM. It might take a while to get the answer and you might not like the answer, but then you clearly have formed a strong opinion based on something.



#105 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,826 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 14 January 2020 - 03:41

. .  there seems to be little doubt that the heat/drought/bushfires etc.  is due to the unusual behaviour of the IOD,  causing the monsoon off the  Northern Territory to be missing (or very late in arriving).  

 

 If you can suggest a credible mechanism where a slight increase in atmospheric CO2 or  a (very) slight increase in the World's temperature can possibly cause the IOD to behave in such a way . . .    

 

There is plenty of research into this eg http://nespclimate.c...n-ocean-dipole/

 

 

analysis of climate model output showed that the frequency of extreme positive IOD events are projected to increase under greenhouse warming, leading to more occurrences of drought and bushfires over Indonesia and Australia.



#106 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,987 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 14 January 2020 - 08:30

Picking random examples doesn't actually mean much, climate is not weather and vice versa, and especially where glaciers are concerned, global climate is not local weather.

 

However, for the most parts glaciers are retreating globally, possibly because the global temperature has warmed slightly, but can you exercise your mind and think of two other reasons why they might be retreating (not all might be retreating for the same reasons)? Unless you can, then you are just blurting talking points and not providing proof of anything.

 

 

here's a bit of fun 

https://www.ecowatch...2644665325.html

Yeah, a bit like a decade ago Flim Flammery told us the Murray would never run again,, it was in flood a couple of years ago. And that is with Eastern states hogging way too much water from it. It was close the year before as well. 

And Lake Eyre has had water in for over 10 years as well.

And his bechside home has not gone under water either,, the oceans were going to rise alarmingly.

Lets face it the less crap we put into the atmosphere the better, as well as rivers etc also.

But this is cyclical, the river stopped running a 100 years ago at Renmark, but guess what it is still running.

Do some very simple research, There was seas in central Australia, many countrys were under water,, or above water and sunk.

As for fires,,, a lot more proper management means a lot less fires. Lock up the loonies with matches.

1939 Fires here in SA was hotter than these fires and that burnt a lot of land. The reason many Volounteer fire brigades started. My father was a founding member of one of many.



#107 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,710 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 January 2020 - 09:45

So we have moved from "glaciers shrinking? Humbug!" to "oh well, but this is just a local weather phenomenon".

 

So what are your explanations for the shrinking of global ice?

 

Sorry, I asked you to find out what I already know. Fail.



#108 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,710 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 January 2020 - 09:53

Carbon particle buildup on the surface of the glacier, and lack of snow in the catchment zone of the glacier are two of the mechanisms that have to be accounted for before you can claim temperature. The total effect differs for each glacier. Oh, and  a significant part of the Antarctic ice melt is subsurface volcanoes. Not actually an area I've looked into, apparently you haven't either.



#109 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,336 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 14 January 2020 - 13:10

No scientific content, but a nicely presented, gentle overview for the scientists to work with.

 



#110 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,336 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 14 January 2020 - 19:26

Mooted greener  F1 2-stroke engines for 2025

 

https://www.motorspo...OyBRvWx17Vn3bnQ



#111 Zoe

Zoe
  • Member

  • 3,393 posts
  • Joined: July 99

Posted 14 January 2020 - 20:54

Carbon particle buildup on the surface of the glacier, and lack of snow in the catchment zone of the glacier are two of the mechanisms that have to be accounted for before you can claim temperature. The total effect differs for each glacier. Oh, and  a significant part of the Antarctic ice melt is subsurface volcanoes. Not actually an area I've looked into, apparently you haven't either.

I am not sure whether there are subsurface volcanoes in the arctic that cause the melting of the polar sea ice. The fact that ski areas what were thriving a few decades ago do not see anymore snow is probably also due to, ummm, too much grass on the hills? Nothing to do with increasing temperatures? The measurement of ocean temperatures showing an increase of temperature probably due to non calibrated measurements?



#112 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,710 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 January 2020 - 22:54

Sorry, i don't do blather.



#113 NRoshier

NRoshier
  • Member

  • 460 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 15 January 2020 - 04:52

Found this comment interesting: "It’s about how the interior pack ice of Antarctica is growing faster than it’s glaciers are melting, meaning Antarctica isn’t contributing much to rising sea levels. Not news really, since it’s been established that the northern hemisphere is warming faster than the southern hemisphere. However, the reason the pack ice is growing is because it’s snowing there more. Antarctica, which is normally a desert, is now getting more moisture, because of… you guessed it, global warming. An average temperature of -13 °F roughly corresponds to an average precipitation of 16 inches, while temperatures below -67 °F correspond to values of precipitation below 2 inches. This is explained by the fact that at -67 °F, the saturated vapor pressure is 30 times lower than at -13 °F: in other words, the air can hold much less moisture, and then cause less precipitation."



#114 Zoe

Zoe
  • Member

  • 3,393 posts
  • Joined: July 99

Posted 15 January 2020 - 06:05

Well, Greg then don't do blather but tell us your reasoning why the arctic (without the ant) ice is retreating. Over years, if not decades.



#115 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,710 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 15 January 2020 - 08:10

Probably warming. I'm basing that on zero analysis except that i know that most of the hysteria about average global temperatures rising is because the arctic is getting a lot warmer, and the tropics etc aren't. The greenland ice cap is melting faster because of the carbon and the temperature.However this is all banal. Now I've done your homework for you.



#116 Ovlid

Ovlid
  • New Member

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: December 19

Posted 15 January 2020 - 10:04

Interesting . I never knew there were volcanoes under the ice in Antarctica. Been doing some research. He's two of  many articles. Apparently volcanoes have always been there and the ice acts as a cap. Most research points to more volcanic activity in the northern atmosphere because glaciers are melting which results in more geothermal activity. 

 

https://climate.nasa...sea-level-rise/ 

 

https://www.theguard...anos-antarctica
 



#117 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 15 January 2020 - 10:12

 gg - In post No.32 above you exhibit a brief and fleeting moment of wisdom,  logic (I was going to write "and sobriety" but I didn't).   Your statement that anything can be found on the internet -  supporting a GW, or an anti-GW view of the world is very true.

 This is the whole crux of the climate change debate  -  where does one get correct information from/or who is to believed/disbelieved? Or get a reasonable and independent overview of GW etc.

  An old and august organisation like the CSIRO?  Surely they would be unbiased?  I had dealings with the CSIRO a few years ago - verdict? What an absolute pack of useless dickheads - I wouldn't believe anything from them.  Were you aware that the CSIRO no longer has "departments"  but has  "flagships" -  "flagships"  for Christ's Sake.

 

 The BOM?  Probably thoroughly infiltrated by the  Public Service Unions/Labor Party.

 

The UN?  -    the Chief Climate Scientist is allegedly  a pervy  ex-bus driver  or similar.   Attractive as that sounds - I don't think so.  

 

Saint Greta von  Thundberg?  An acknowledged climate specialist who probably wonders where the sun goes at night or on a cloudy day.

 

There are so many  "Institutes for Climate Change Studies"  or similar-sounding groups  on the net and elsewhere that are clearly just "fronts"  for one side of the debate or the other.   If you proposed a truly neutral and independent  organisation to study  GW etc. - you would get little or no financial support and soon go out of business.  

 

 So - (serious question) - who would you recommend as a good, unbiased and  independent source of  info about GW?


Edited by Kelpiecross, 16 January 2020 - 03:24.


#118 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 15 January 2020 - 10:30

  I have asked  direct questions of the gg and NR  to suggest a mechanism where the atmospheric CO2  has an effect on the IOD, El Nino etc. 

The gg's suggested article (and other articles) to answer this question  appears to give no direct answer but seems to use a circular  argument of the type  - "climate change  causes the IOD etc. to behave unusually and the unusual behaviour of the IOD etc. causes climate change".      


Edited by Kelpiecross, 15 January 2020 - 11:18.


#119 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 15 January 2020 - 10:33

Sorry, i don't do blather.

 

Whereas - I have won Blue Ribbons for "Best Blatherer in Show".  



Advertisement

#120 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,336 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 January 2020 - 12:20

 gg - In post No.32 above you exhibit a brief and fleeting moment of wisdom,  logic (I was going to write "and sobriety" but I didn't).   Your statement that anything can be found on the internet -  supporting a GW, or an anti-GW view of the world is very true.

 This is the whole crux of the climate change debate  -  where does one get correct information from/or who is to believed/disbelieved? Or get a reasonable and independent overview of GW etc.

  An old and august organisation like the CSIRO?  Surely they would be unbiased?  I had dealings with the CSIRO a few years ago - verdict? What an absolute pack of useless dickheads - I wouldn't believe anything from them.  Were you aware that the CSIRO no longer has "departments"  but has  "flagships" -  "flagships"  for Christ's Sake.

 

 The BOM?  Probably thoroughly infiltrated by the  Public Service Unions/Labor Party.

 

The UN?  -    the Chief Climate Scientist is allegedly  a pervy  ex-bus driver  or similar.   Attractive as that sounds - I don't think so.  

 

Saint Greta von  Thundberg?  An acknowledge climate specialist who probably wonders where the sun goes at night or on a cloudy day.

 

There are so many  "Institutes for Climate Change Studies"  or similar-sounding groups  on the net and elsewhere that are clearly just "fronts"  for one side of the debate or the other.   If you proposed a truly neutral and independent  organisation to study  GW etc. - you would get little or no financial support and soon go out of business.  

 

 So - (serious question) - who would you recommend as a good, unbiased and  independent source of  info about GW?

 

You present such a wonderfully prosaic sense of superiority .

 

I'm not sure if it is possible to present a more patronising perspective than this ?


Edited by carlt, 15 January 2020 - 12:21.


#121 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,710 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 15 January 2020 - 23:45

The reason i don't get very excited by melting ice (except when it dilutes my G&T) is that in an interglacial we'd expect higher temperatures than we are currently at, and higher sea levels. While it is damned inconvenient that we started building infrastructure when sea levels were very low, we'll either have to rebuild higher up or build seawalls or lots of other alternatives, not that I fancy living in a submarine.

 

"Paleo data from corals indicate that sea level was 4 to 6 m (or more) above present day sea levels during the last interglacial period, about 125 000 years ago."  sayeth CSIRO. Anyone who has seen raised beaches (NZ and Scotland have great examples) would agree that is a reasonable estimate.

 

 

Here's an article with a  graph of reconstructed temperature and indicative ice volume during the last few ice ages

 

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Interglacial



#122 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,826 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 16 January 2020 - 00:55

 gg - In post No.32 above you exhibit a brief and fleeting moment of wisdom,  logic (I was going to write "and sobriety" but I didn't).   Your statement that anything can be found on the internet -  supporting a GW, or an anti-GW view of the world is very true.

 This is the whole crux of the climate change debate  -  where does one get correct information from/or who is to believed/disbelieved? Or get a reasonable and independent overview of GW etc.

  An old and august organisation like the CSIRO?  Surely they would be unbiased?  I had dealings with the CSIRO a few years ago - verdict? What an absolute pack of useless dickheads - I wouldn't believe anything from them.  Were you aware that the CSIRO no longer has "departments"  but has  "flagships" -  "flagships"  for Christ's Sake.

 

 The BOM?  Probably thoroughly infiltrated by the  Public Service Unions/Labor Party.

 

The UN?  -    the Chief Climate Scientist is allegedly  a pervy  ex-bus driver  or similar.   Attractive as that sounds - I don't think so.  

 

Saint Greta von  Thundberg?  An acknowledge climate specialist who probably wonders where the sun goes at night or on a cloudy day.

 

There are so many  "Institutes for Climate Change Studies"  or similar-sounding groups  on the net and elsewhere that are clearly just "fronts"  for one side of the debate or the other.   If you proposed a truly neutral and independent  organisation to study  GW etc. - you would get little or no financial support and soon go out of business.  

 

 So - (serious question) - who would you recommend as a good, unbiased and  independent source of  info about GW?

 

Your list of objections is reminiscent of what I said in the quote below.

 

What is the basis for the views held by most climate deniers? When I ask, it is always "common sense" or "the science is not valid" or "there is a conspiracy". Only once did I get a truly technical response. That was Greg Locock who posted a link to a well thought out piece by Burt Rutan. The fact is, there is very little scientific research with findings contrary to the consensus view.

 

Read the source material. Go to the people doing research, publishing research, assembling research publications. Avoid "commentary" from armchair experts - Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt or anyone who thinks they can analyse a highly complex system with a bit of old fashioned intuition.

 

CSIRO, BOM, NASA etc are all reliable sources regardless of what you think their political leanings ( btw Miranda Devine doesn't "lean" - she lies horizontally to the right) or any bad experience you may have had with a particular person or department. Greta Thunberg is not a source, she is a campaigner who relies on other sources.

 

 

 

If you proposed a truly neutral and independent  organisation to study  GW etc. - you would get little or no financial support and soon go out of business.

 

There is plenty of funding available for anyone wanting to research the nay case. The institutions listed above are in the main truly neutral and independent along with most universities worldwide. The conspiracy theory you subscribe to is utter BS perpetrated by the nay-sayers. It is the core of their case.



#123 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 January 2020 - 03:28

You present such a wonderfully prosaic sense of superiority .

 

I'm not sure if it is possible to present a more patronising perspective than this ?

 

 Thank you for your very kind comments  -  I have also won Blue Ribbons  in the  "Patronising"   division.  



#124 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 January 2020 - 03:43

Your list of objections is reminiscent of what I said in the quote below.

 

 

Read the source material. Go to the people doing research, publishing research, assembling research publications. Avoid "commentary" from armchair experts - Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt or anyone who thinks they can analyse a highly complex system with a bit of old fashioned intuition.

 

CSIRO, BOM, NASA etc are all reliable sources regardless of what you think their political leanings ( btw Miranda Devine doesn't "lean" - she lies horizontally to the right) or any bad experience you may have had with a particular person or department. Greta Thunberg is not a source, she is a campaigner who relies on other sources.

 

 

There is plenty of funding available for anyone wanting to research the nay case. The institutions listed above are in the main truly neutral and independent along with most universities worldwide. The conspiracy theory you subscribe to is utter BS perpetrated by the nay-sayers. It is the core of their case.

 

  I really should give up my  Blue Ribbons for Blather  - there is  someone far more deserving of them.

 

 I am only vaguely aware of the existence of Miranda Devine - and I don't really care in what position she lies.  

 

 You still haven't answered the question about who your favourite  armchair  experts are  - the answer should be very illuminating. 

 

    Maybe you should run one of your famous  surveys  to see if you get  a 97% consensus on climate change.    I would think that there would be a fairly  representative group  of people with  science, engineering  and other technical  qualifications on this forum  - I bet you won't get a 97%  consensus with your views.  

 

 If you (or someone else) does run a survey - make sure the questions are not "leading"  or biased.   



#125 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 January 2020 - 04:39

 https://www.thegwpf....ree-on-nothing/

 

  Of course it is a well-known fact that Plimer is essentially  an uneducated  dolt  - verging on being a ******  (sorry "mentally  challenged)".

 

  Did you know that he actually doesn't believe  in The Creation - and has publicly said so?  What a fool.  

 

  "Emeritus Professor"   my arse.  


Edited by Kelpiecross, 16 January 2020 - 04:57.


#126 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 16 January 2020 - 17:44

You present such a wonderfully prosaic sense of superiority .

 

I'm not sure if it is possible to present a more patronising perspective than this ?

*patronizing



#127 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,826 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 16 January 2020 - 23:13

  You still haven't answered the question about who your favourite  armchair  experts are  - the answer should be very illuminating.   

To be perfectly honest, I don't have one. There are a number of "actual" experts in the media who I respect - David Attenborough, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, Ross Garnaut (not a scientist).

 

As to commentators, I have no interest in the views of armchair experts pushing an agenda contrary to the consensus of real experts. I am sick of the conspiracy theories, the proofs of incompetence, bias etc. Even if true, none of that is proof that climate change is not happening. Show me some evidence - the researchers have.

 

You want to talk about bias? The "nay" side are the experts eg Murdoch media constantly reports the "nay" case without seeking an opinion from the other side. 

 

Even if we don't believe in climate change, the rest of the world does. Australia's interests would be best served by policy decisions that take advantage of that fact. 

‘The fog of Australian politics on climate change has obscured a fateful reality: Australia has the potential to be an economic superpower of the future post-carbon world.’—Ross Garnaut

 

 

Maybe you should run one of your famous  surveys  to see if you get  a 97% consensus on climate change.    I would think that there would be a fairly  representative group  of people with  science, engineering  and other technical  qualifications on this forum  - I bet you won't get a 97%  consensus with your views.  

 

 If you (or someone else) does run a survey - make sure the questions are not "leading"  or biased. 

 

Why? What would it prove? How many of us are experts? All it would tell us is something about public opinion and how representative of the general public, this forum is. We are mostly rev-heads after all.

 

77% of Australians in this survey believe CC is occurring. https://www.abc.net....itudes/11484690


Edited by gruntguru, 16 January 2020 - 23:14.


#128 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,883 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 17 January 2020 - 00:24

Sorry to post in this thread after skimming through it, but I'd like to ask a questuon or two... Let's say the Earth is a piece of rock orbiting the Sun- should Earth's climate this year be colder, warmer, or equal than last year's? (mini ice ages in the past might've beeen dictated by nothing more than Earth's distance and position,and its axis, relative to the Sun)

 

On the other hand- let's assume greenhouse effect doea indeed trap excess heat in our planet's atmosphere- where will that heat go- where will that energy go? Could that heat melt the ice caps- which would melt ice, reduce ocean temperature and cuse cold spells in areas that benefited from ocean streams like UK? Or will it uniformly heat the atmospere as if it was an perfect orb, as one would think it was?

 

And, even if we think  we've nailed the problem and we've got a way to fix it (like renewable energy sources),,, are we fixing it? It is, in my country (which is producing way more energy from renewable sources* than it is obliged by int'l treaties and such), that it is produced 'with a loss' so it is backed by government stipulations and grants. (Cue in croneyism and nepotism- all in the name of progress and greater good). 

 

The last jab might've been aimed at the 'whole' of human race, but how many scientists are looking at a graph like Greg Locock has posted here and evaluating temperature trends vs. expected ones instead of "last years"?!? Not many, I would think- not because they don't wan't to- but because mindless number-crunching and the need to get in the spotlight has gotten better of them. "Forgive them Father, for they did not know what they do" (tor, hey did not know better- although they should've... not as an obligation to the science, or anything- they should've just, out of scuentific curiousity, questioned themselves).



#129 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,826 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 January 2020 - 05:14

You greatly underestimate the capacity of the average scientific researcher for critical examination - including self-examination.



#130 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 17 January 2020 - 16:32

Did none of you lame-o's get my joke or what? The Yank in the crowd shouldn't be the one with the dryest sense of humor, you know.



#131 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,752 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 17 January 2020 - 17:11

*humour



#132 TennisUK

TennisUK
  • Member

  • 7,037 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 17 January 2020 - 19:38

Maybe you should run one of your famous  surveys  to see if you get  a 97% consensus on climate change.    I would think that there would be a fairly  representative group  of people with  science, engineering  and other technical  qualifications on this forum  - I bet you won't get a 97%  consensus with your views.  

https://www.theguard...GgzFhrs7VkQlQxM



#133 NRoshier

NRoshier
  • Member

  • 460 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 18 January 2020 - 01:36

The only thing that disproves science is better science.

So much of the anti-GW 'proof' is as valid as a the bloke sitting on his cooler in the car park at Indy saying 'the engineers don't know what they're doing 'coz the cars crash so much, my mechanic would fix them up...'

Kelpie you want questions really answered then find someone with  knowledge, otherwise you're bending over for the plumber and not the proctologist.



#134 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 January 2020 - 03:57

The only thing that disproves science is better science.

So much of the anti-GW 'proof' is as valid as a the bloke sitting on his cooler in the car park at Indy saying 'the engineers don't know what they're doing 'coz the cars crash so much, my mechanic would fix them up...'

Kelpie you want questions really answered then find someone with  knowledge, otherwise you're bending over for the plumber and not the proctologist.

 

 You'd know all about that Stretch. 



#135 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 January 2020 - 04:01

 

  You have got me there -  The Guardian is an impeccable and unbiased source of information on Climate Change. 



#136 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 January 2020 - 04:02

Did none of you lame-o's get my joke or what? The Yank in the crowd shouldn't be the one with the dryest sense of humor, you know.

 

 I couldn't decide whether you were taking the Michael  or making a joke.  



#137 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,826 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 January 2020 - 09:20

  You have got me there -  The Guardian is an impeccable and unbiased source of information on Climate Change. 

The telling parts of that article are not authored by the guardian journalist - they are quotes from the author of the research paper. Perhaps you could take the time to read the paper? In fact, how about I make this the reference source you keep asking me for.

 

https://link.springe...0704-015-1597-5



#138 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,826 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 January 2020 - 09:24

Did none of you lame-o's get my joke or what? The Yank in the crowd shouldn't be the one with the dryest sense of humor, you know.

 

I came so close. Typed a response. Couldn't decide whether you were tongue-in-cheek or i might offend you. I will hitherto give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

*Murkan



#139 TennisUK

TennisUK
  • Member

  • 7,037 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 18 January 2020 - 09:47

  You have got me there -  The Guardian is an impeccable and unbiased source of information on Climate Change. 

Then why not check out the paper cited in the article.



Advertisement

#140 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 3,336 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 18 January 2020 - 12:29

Did none of you lame-o's get my joke or what? The Yank in the crowd shouldn't be the one with the dryest sense of humor, you know.

 

 

 I couldn't decide whether you were taking the Michael  or making a joke.  

 

Apparently 'taking the Michael (piss)' is a Commonwealth pejorative , so seeing as the Murkans said f.u.c.k off to that glorious institution long ago , it must have been a joke ?

 

(ps edited for clarity of expression - I find **** to not represent what I am trying to convey)


Edited by carlt, 18 January 2020 - 12:31.


#141 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 19 January 2020 - 04:04

 I think you won't hear the expression "taking the Michael"  much anywhere in the world these days - outside of old episodes of "The Bill"  - but I find them entertaining.   Like  (also from "The Bill")   - "You're  nIcked, awwite".  

 

 The magic electronic whatever  that controls this forum  seems to make great use of the  ********  system - sometimes in  an apparently  puzzling and unnecessary manner.    


Edited by Kelpiecross, 19 January 2020 - 04:08.


#142 NRoshier

NRoshier
  • Member

  • 460 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 19 January 2020 - 20:59

 You'd know all about that Stretch. 

Kelpie you seem to have taken this thread and the discussion consistently to a personal binary level of opinion based information. Many of us have encouraged you to seek suitably qualified people to ask your questions of and to read original research documentation, but you seem unwilling to do so. I think we'd all continue to encourage you to broaden the quality of your sources.



#143 NRoshier

NRoshier
  • Member

  • 460 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 20 January 2020 - 01:56

Perhaps this is of interest:

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/



#144 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 20 January 2020 - 02:48

I came so close. Typed a response. Couldn't decide whether you were tongue-in-cheek or i might offend you. I will hitherto give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

*Murkan

I'm a racer. You can't offend me. I might respond harshly if attacked or frustrated, but I won't be offended, promise.



#145 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 20 January 2020 - 03:02

Perhaps this is of interest:

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

It is, but it's also not even close to the entirety of the discussion. The climate warming and inducing planetary changes is a truism. The response, which seems to be much more an effort to institute social policy politically than actually alleviate or prepare for the inevitable, is of much greater concern to many of us.

 

When any issue is approached from the standpoint of "This is an existential crisis and we must respond immediately with massive societal changes which will change the entire geopolitical landscape.", I get skeptical. Keep in mind, that doesn't mean I'm necessarily skeptical of the concept of warming itself. I'm one of those that accepts the point that the planet is warming, but I'm often lumped in the camp of 'Deniers' because I don't march lock-step with the dogmatic responses being advanced by the movements most ardent ideologues. I don't find this a personal shortcoming.



#146 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 20 January 2020 - 04:16

 Well said FB  - it is a pity more people on this forum don't think like that.  



#147 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 20 January 2020 - 04:24

Kelpie you seem to have taken this thread and the discussion consistently to a personal binary level of opinion based information. Many of us have encouraged you to seek suitably qualified people to ask your questions of and to read original research documentation, but you seem unwilling to do so. I think we'd all continue to encourage you to broaden the quality of your sources.

 

 

  And what "suitably qualified"  people what these be?  The gg's  list of his inspirational people are five of the biggest idiot, biased  Pinkos  imaginable.    I would imagine that your suggested people would be even sillier and more biased.   


Edited by Kelpiecross, 20 January 2020 - 04:25.


#148 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 20 January 2020 - 04:26

Perhaps this is of interest:

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

No it's not - it's crap. 



#149 NRoshier

NRoshier
  • Member

  • 460 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 20 January 2020 - 07:56

  And what "suitably qualified"  people what these be?  The gg's  list of his inspirational people are five of the biggest idiot, biased  Pinkos  imaginable.    I would imagine that your suggested people would be even sillier and more biased.   

OK, clearly trying to continue a conversation with you about this topic is going to continue down this pathway, which is a shame, but also a waste of time.



#150 NRoshier

NRoshier
  • Member

  • 460 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 20 January 2020 - 08:03

It is, but it's also not even close to the entirety of the discussion. The climate warming and inducing planetary changes is a truism. The response, which seems to be much more an effort to institute social policy politically than actually alleviate or prepare for the inevitable, is of much greater concern to many of us.

 

When any issue is approached from the standpoint of "This is an existential crisis and we must respond immediately with massive societal changes which will change the entire geopolitical landscape.", I get skeptical. Keep in mind, that doesn't mean I'm necessarily skeptical of the concept of warming itself. I'm one of those that accepts the point that the planet is warming, but I'm often lumped in the camp of 'Deniers' because I don't march lock-step with the dogmatic responses being advanced by the movements most ardent ideologues. I don't find this a personal shortcoming.

No problem with skepticism, but if you want to refute to current position then it must be based on something and hopefully better science, which I hope you'll share. As far as the political machinations on both sides of the GW action plan, inertia exists in every system, political and societal as well.

https://thelogicofsc...OCB0t1kKZoXgdK4


Edited by NRoshier, 20 January 2020 - 21:27.