- Banned
- #26
This concern from a bloke who has a 4WD and a huge suburban house. Strange.
-
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Grand Final
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round PF Winner: Still Me
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Global warming not going away
- Thread starter Doctor Jolly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Re: Another misguided labour fanboi thread
I'm still waiting for any of the alarmists to cite any scientific studies that have adhered to the scientific method. So far their level of debate has contained nothing more than political viewpoints, outlandish religious beliefs, volumes of name calling and a constant stream of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).
Astronaut Walter Cunningham has a great article regarding hansen, NASA and the propaganda behind global warming. I highly recommend those not up to the fourth graders standard of research to read it even if its just help keep alive my faint hope that they may actually become better informed.
http://www.waltercunningham.com/Ignorance.html
I'm still waiting for any of the alarmists to cite any scientific studies that have adhered to the scientific method. So far their level of debate has contained nothing more than political viewpoints, outlandish religious beliefs, volumes of name calling and a constant stream of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).
Astronaut Walter Cunningham has a great article regarding hansen, NASA and the propaganda behind global warming. I highly recommend those not up to the fourth graders standard of research to read it even if its just help keep alive my faint hope that they may actually become better informed.
http://www.waltercunningham.com/Ignorance.html
Again I refer you to this podcast
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podca...r_20100509.mp3
Although I know you won't listen to it as you are afraid that an understanding of what evidence and expert opinion actually is, will ****** your regurgitation of pseudo science.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podca...r_20100509.mp3
Although I know you won't listen to it as you are afraid that an understanding of what evidence and expert opinion actually is, will ****** your regurgitation of pseudo science.
simpleton
Cancelled
- Banned
- #29
What was the expert opinion about the economy before the GFC? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Moderation)
What did the UK Met office predict before the coldest winter in 100 years? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2009/oct/27/uk-weather-mild-winter-forecast)
When making predictions about complex non-linear systems such as the economy or climate expert opinion does very poorly. It appears your opinions are based on ignorance about this.
Listen to the podcast then we'll discuss.
Whilst I do understand that you are committed to arguing from a position of ignorance, I'm not going to buy it.
Let's start by defining our terms, specifically, what counts for an 'expert', and 'expert opinion'.
Hang on - he has a solar generator for his garage!
That podcast is by abc's global warming alarmist robyn williams. This is truly "pseudo science" at its worst from someone who does his best to stifle debate to aid his deranged beliefs.
Worst still, my taxes contribute towards his salary.
Worst still, my taxes contribute towards his salary.
simpleton
Cancelled
- Banned
- #33
So you are looking for a semantic argument instead of answering my point about predicting the future of complex non-linear systems. I suppose that's not unexpected given your ignorance about the value of expert opinion in this field. Look to geologists and earthquakes if you need to understand that descriptive experts are not necessarily predictive experts.
You and reason are clearly bitter enemies.
This is a simple explanation of evidence and expert opinion.
Calling R.W. an alarmist, or the Queen of England and the Pope communists doesn't change that.
Like I said. You clearly don't want a reasoned discussion. For you, this is a political discussion.
Yep as previously pointed out you are the thickest person on bigfooty. You have a lot of competition in this area i must say but yep you are drop dead stupid. Nobody has ever doubted the regenerative powers of choral reefs - its a living organism, it grows, it dies and so on. What the report you ignorantly linked simply shows that these coral reefs have the ability to withstand the rising sea levels. It does not dispute the fact of AGW at all.
As for the actic sea ice - yeah it doesnt look pretty.
http:
//content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/06/as-2010-warms-up-arctic-sea-ice-at-record-low-/1
U.S. data indicate that Arctic sea ice is at a record low for this time of year as 2010 shapes up to be one of the warmest years ever.
Scientists at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center report that Arctic sea ice – frozen seawater floating on the ocean surface – is at its lowest physical level for the season and is on course to break the previous record low set in 2007, reports the Guardian, a British media outlet.
You wouldnt be relying on bug eyes Monckton for your crap would you..
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-shows-Monckton-wrong-on-Arctic-sea-ice.html
A simple graph for a simpleton...
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #36
Thick as a plank
A simple graph for a simpleton...
I'm sure Hawkamania or morgoth will be able to find a blog somewhere which has the same graph, expect the Y axis values are removed, and the line has been rotated 30 degrees to show an upward trend.
Yes I can see hawkermania quoting an 80 year old ex astronaut for this one!
for some reason the link wont work.
Is that the episode of the science show where Bjorn Lomborg (one of the poster boys for the denialists) has his research basically shredded?
Heard that, interesting.
The one I was referring to was on Ockham's razor on May 9 called 'The importance of evidence'
You're right. The link doesn't seem to be working. My apologies.
I'm not sure if I heard the one you are referring to. Do you have a date for it.
This one's interesting, from Saturday May 1
Talking about how the climate debate has become an ideological issue for the right.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2010/05/ssw_20100501_1231.mp3
It talks about how the science has been systematically misrepresented by vested interests and how the right has refused to remove itself from this misrepresentation
A better one (possibly the one you are referring to) which talks about the level of evidence employed by the climate change conspiracy theories called 'Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies' which is from the science show on April 3
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2859986.htm
Included were interesting facts about the level of scientific expertise by those conspiracy theorists writing on the issue. Amongst much other interesting stuff
If your a climate change conspiracy theorist and your desperate to cling to your ignorance, I would strongly advise that you avoid these programs.
No the one I am talking about was last week, if you subscribe to itunes it is the one dated 29th of May.
Link?
When was the last month that global temperatures were below average?
February 1994. Even then only by 0.00003 of a degree 0r 3/10,000th of a degree
If you want a more solid figure of 0.1 of a degree below average you have to go back to the mid 1980s
Those damn pesky facts just keep getting in the way of a rip roaring conspiracy theory.
February 1994. Even then only by 0.00003 of a degree 0r 3/10,000th of a degree
If you want a more solid figure of 0.1 of a degree below average you have to go back to the mid 1980s
Those damn pesky facts just keep getting in the way of a rip roaring conspiracy theory.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1867444.htm#transcript
Andrew Bolt: Dean of science...suggesting rising seas this next century of up to 100 metres, or Al Gore six metres. When I see things like that I know these are false. You mentioned the IPCC report; that suggests, at worst on best scenarios, 59 centimetres.
Robyn Williams: Well, whether you take the surge or whether you take the actual average rise are different things.
Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century...do you really think that?
Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes. The increase of melting that they've noticed in Greenland and the amount that we've seen from the western part of Antarctica, if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge, but the question...
When was the last month that global temperatures were below average?
February 1994. Even then only by 0.00003 of a degree 0r 3/10,000th of a degree
If you want a more solid figure of 0.1 of a degree below average you have to go back to the mid 1980s
Those damn pesky facts just keep getting in the way of a rip roaring conspiracy theory.
Were at the top of a warming cycle so it goes without saying temps are above average. When we get to the bottom of a cooling cycle, temps will be below average. Get it?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #46
Hey, you remember me!.
I have 1 diesel powered car (4wd) between the 4 people who live in the house. Thats 1/4 car per person. At around 10l/100km. They each drive at a per capita of 2.5 l / 100km. (ie motorbike/person).
I catch public transport to/from work.
Our house is well suited to the climate. Never needs summer air conditioning. I have recently converted our electric hot water to solar, and installed a 3 Kw Solar PV system to the roof to offset out electricity charges. (to complement my shed stuff as Dry rot kindly mentioned).
Winter heating is achieved through burning renewable fuels (wood) all obtained through off-cuts of local "pruning". (ie no tree was cut down to be burnt, and no transportation impact).
Yes, thats me. Any questions ?
EIDT: Oh, and I forgot to mention, I'm in the process of coverting the 40w Halogens in the house to 3w LED's.
That's not how the experts are reading the evidence.
You can huff and puff as much as you like and quote all the pseudo science sponsored by conservative think tanks funded by big polluters.
You can make stuff up all you like to prove that cigarettes are a healthy product, that the world was created in 6 days less than 10,000 years ago, or that global warming is a massive communist conspiracy theory.
But instead of jealously protecting your ignorance, read the above links about what evidence is, how it is interpreted, and what the most likely correct interpretation is.
If you dare.
They think that by personally attacking you, they prove that global warming is a communist conspiracy theory.
I'd like to no more about these 'cycles,' such as what they are how they are caused etc.
Cause saying we are at the top of a cycle doesn't really mean anything unless you can show something driving the cycle.
Still waiting for some evidence to support that claim.
Even though I know evidence isn't your long suit.
