Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus are largely made of hydrocarbons and are not light years away.

Got your heckles up I see Spindoc, sorry I ran out of posts yesterday, must talk to Graham about getting that changed eh.

Like your name and I surmise you picked it for its meaning “a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favour or against a certain organisation or public figure or may rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics” and as such, proven through your own hypocrisy it generally is apparent from this website ‘you’ actually use Cohenite as your creative representative.
Where are your facts?

So much for your statement to me vis “So when you say “data and evidence”, you recognize that you have neither the skills nor the evidence and will instead, rely upon someone else’s opinion.”

If I have read this correctly you are in fact the one using someone else’s opinion, and as such when did you become an authority on what Cohenite posts. Have you checked his facts, have you been peer review published in this field, if you have put it up, or as you similarly stated ‘Hello, I am still waiting’.

In addition, at what point did I state or indicate that I am a supporter of AGW, I didn’t and haven’t, I do however work in a scientific field which has clearly identified that our changing climate is having an impact on our benthic habitat, in particular temperate seagrass shoot density and in addition certain changes in the ecosystem ‘may’ be attributed to more localised extreme weather (not climate) events.

Get your facts straight before launching an all-out war on something I fear you know very little about. When you post some real, documented, scientifically proven material I would be more than happy to provide unbiased, critical and contemporary feedback.

I too love the smell of a spiral exit from a debate and your “gibberish” response to my final post yesterday supports me far more than you.

Cheers

Geoff

Imajulianutter, well, here I have to go again, explaining simple things to simple people. Note the words ‘may’ and ‘if’. Stop automatically going down the AGW conspiracy road every time someone posts something about anything, you will feel better at the end of each day I am sure, either that or get off your meds, they are obviously not working.

Some of those short term extreme weather events do include blizzards, record low temps and cooling periods, and yes they are part of more frequent and extreme events, primarily due to changing energy levels in our climactic system.

In our case we have a south Western Australian temperate climatic area which has scientifically been shown to have less rainfall, lower levels of groundwater intrusion into the marine habitat and a myriad of other impacts that are occurring in our ‘region’. No chances of the blizzards etc here in Perth, learn about forcing and physics and the laws of energy and you might be able to gain a simple grasp of some broader facts.

As to the “relying on historical records that only extend back to the early 2000's wise?” why yes, in our case our focus is on accurate seagrass health studies, they provide an excellent indicator of broader ecosystem health (i.e. levels of chlorophyll a, phytoplankton biomass etc).

We have very good seagrass dataset going back to about 2000, earlier than this time period the data becomes less accurate, some years results are missing and as such using data only going back to the early 2000’s is good scientific rigour, not that I would imagine you would have any understanding of this or anything that makes even the most basic or rational sense

Geoff of Middle Perth.

That was a very long diatribe about my “handle”, Spindoc. I could have saved you much trouble if you had just asked, it actually comes from fixing washing machines and spin dryers, get it? Spindoc. He he he.

Actually I quite liked your explanation, it sounded almost intellectual, hmmm, nice!

Just on to other humorous anecdotes, you say (ad nauseam) that you have been peer reviewed and work in “a scientific field”, interesting, so does my secretary, the tea lady and the garbage collector however, would love to see some of your peer reviewed work so a link would be great, thanks.

Please don’t refer us to any more of the rubbish from such as your previous link, you know, like the report from:

Cockburn Sound Management Council, Department of Environment and Conservation

The one that offers pages of research yet suggests the 2-4 degree warming in Cockburn Sound was “ warming associated with one of the strongest La Ni˜na events ever recorded” Oh so it was entirely natural was it?

Not to mention the final AGW flourish with yet another “prediction”.

“The 2011 heat wave event also provided an insight into conditions that may become more prevalent in Cockburn Sound, and elsewhere, if short-term warming events become more frequent and extreme, as predicted”.

“as predicted”? And here I was thinking this was about science.

Anyway Geoff my secretary informs me that our tea lady is available for peer reviewing after Christmas. Let me know soon as she is getting pretty booked up.

Need any spin dryer repairs whilst I’m at it?

Geoff of Perth, from your posts I gather the horrifying impression that you may be a paid employ of mine, working in a university somewhere.

I certainly hope not, when you can come out with garbage like, "Some of those short term extreme weather events do include blizzards, record low temps and cooling periods, and yes they are part of more frequent and extreme events, primarily due to changing energy levels in our climactic system".

Surely an academic could not give out such rubbish, particularly when no lesser god than the IPCC has just admitted that there is no evidence of this.

If I were a warmist I would be personally pleased about this, there is peer reviewed research suggesting that any AGW type warming will reduce the potential for energy transfer from equatorial regions to the polls, thus reducing severe weather. That is what has been happening, if you bother to look.

I suppose we are unlikely to ever get the truth from you people, as to weather you actually believe this rubbish, or simply believe it is good enough to con the average politician. I have a sneaking suspicion it is the latter. You can't all be as dumb as you appear, or can you?

“gibberish” did you say?