The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Abbott, Obama and the new battle over climate agenda > Comments

Abbott, Obama and the new battle over climate agenda : Comments

By Benjamin Jones, published 13/6/2014

If Howard and Bush were in ideological harmony, Obama and Abbott are near polar opposites in many crucial regards.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Any article that postulates the '97% of climate scientists agree' argument in support of their position is immediately compromised and there is no point in reading further. This idiocy has been so thoroughly discredited, so long ago, that the author is completely out of the loop in examining the issue. To make such a wholly un-scientific and inaccurate statement is really disheartening.
Posted by Prompete, Friday, 13 June 2014 8:36:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The very morning this article is published, it is contradicted by the MSM reports of a cordial meeting between Abbott and Obama.

And that's without bothering to deal with the writer's monumental ignorance and wishful thinking on the global warming issue itself.

What a dunce.
Posted by cato, Friday, 13 June 2014 10:15:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't forget there are lot of people making a living our of the Global Warming scaremongering.

The Banks and Wall St want the ETS and carbon taxes so they can make money out of a new derivative at our expense again.Our whole system is a corrupt sham with too few owning too much.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 13 June 2014 10:56:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, when someone is the suppository of all wisdom, its hard to convince them of a contrary view.
Best to wait until there's enough incontrovertible evidence to prove or disprove a theory, no matter how popular?
Perhaps if we wait until the sea levels have risen by around 3 metres, we will have enough evidence to convince the professional skeptics?
Skepticism is no bad thing, given all human advancement was only made possible, by robust debate and the exchange of ideas.
Until we have that incontrovertible evidence, what harm could ensue, if we opted for cheaper than coal energy, that was small enough as mass produced modules, to be sited adjacent to the industrial estates of the future, thereby, further reducing industrial energy costs, by an additional half!
Now, the price gouging coal fired power industry are just not going to do this for us, nor are debt laden, economy harming foreign speculators!
Patently, and as exampled elsewhere many times over, the latter are far better tearing down than building up!
So we need to do this ourselves, regardless of the rear-guard action of the current fossil fuel industry, or the incompetent or self serving fools who also serve them?
I mean, Thorium will still need to be mined and even more thoroughly processed, and given the sheer number of small projects, at least some power co jobs! The new lithium industry, and or rare earths industries, that will also be built as part and parcel of this mining and processing industry, will do nobody any harm either!
And administrators, with an eye on the ball, will see that some of the old worked out open cut mine sites, are tailor made for the new industrial estates of the future!
I mean, what are the dissenters afraid of?
Economy and manufacturing industry building, ultra cheap power? Seriously?
That for them, equates to loss of current profits perhaps?
If there's a better reason for dissent than personal hip pocket pain, I've yet to hear it!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 13 June 2014 11:06:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Rhrosty, doctors used to bleed people when they were sick, & stomach ulcers are caused by stress, don't cha know?

Deferring to authority is a very silly idea olds mate, it usually takes more than a few goes for boffins top get anything right, & they sure aint got it right on this one yet. They aren't even close, with their eyes blinded by the bright light of research grants.

Thank god we have an Abbott to run rings around that dumb orator Obama, the yanks were silly enough to give the top job to.

If they weren't so insular, that would have seen what happened to us when we were stupid enough to give our dumb orator Rudd the job.

Isn't it pathetic that the lefties want to see yet another dumb orator Turnbull in the job.

Some people never learn.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 13 June 2014 1:22:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cato, of course their meeting would be kisses & hugs, what more do you expect from heads of stare these days, the order of the day is to keep the masses in their place and keep them there, or exterminate them in some unjust war somewhere , you being included in the masses, keep that in mind.
Posted by Ojnab, Friday, 13 June 2014 2:06:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are a hundred trillion reasons why the fossil fuel industry would have you believe that global warming is all a hoax. That is roughly the dollar value of the known reserves of fossil fuels that remain in the ground.

I know of no reputable scientific organisation that claims that human emissions of greenhouse gases are not responsible for the majority of the global that has occurred since 1970.

Until such time as the ice stops melting and sea levels stop rising there is no reason to hope that the climate is not being influenced by increasing levels of GHGs in the atmosphere.

History will judge the Abbott’s governments rejection of effective action on climate change very harshly. I would also suggest that taking on the US has never proved to be good policy.
Posted by warmair, Friday, 13 June 2014 3:45:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Second paragraph should read
I know of no reputable scientific organisation that claims that human emissions of greenhouse gases are not responsible for the majority of global warming that has occurred since 1970.
Posted by warmair, Friday, 13 June 2014 3:53:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin, the last thing we need is another diatribe of nonsense like this, in support of the AGW fraud..

You fail to mention that there is no science to support the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

There has been no global warming for 17 years, despite the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over that time. There is no reason to expect that warming if it occurs will be anything but beneficial. The increase in atmospheric CO2 has manifested in the greening of deserts, and increasd crop yields.

Your pathetic assertions are based on misinformation and lies.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 13 June 2014 5:09:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author should know better than to reiterate what the closed minds at the ABC have been harping daily about the different Obama and Abbott climate agendas.

Ironically, President Obama and other world leaders did not agree to reaching a global climate change agreement for the period from 2012 at Copenhagen in 2009.
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 13 June 2014 10:14:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It has been effective for fraud-backers like yourself, warmair, to announce the support of scientific institutions for the AGW Fraud. It appears that the American Physical Society will soon cease to back the fraud, and hopefully begin the unravelling of this scandalous state of affairs.
“he reason it's so significant is that it comes only three years after one of the APS's most distinguished members - Professor Hal Lewis - resigned in disgust at its endorsement of what he called "the global warming scam."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/20/American-Physical-Society-Sees-The-Light-Will-It-Be-The-First-Major-Scientific-Institution-To-Reject-The-Global-Warming-Consensus
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 14 June 2014 12:29:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I will make it simple....olo....do what you will....Iam going back to my environment forums, for where I belong.

Kat
Posted by ORIGINS OF MAN, Saturday, 14 June 2014 7:40:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I seem to remember that Mr Rudd said that the gw religion was the greatest moral challenge of the century. Oh thats right then he changed his mind as did Gillard. What a farce. Abbott should of always stood by his original statement.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 14 June 2014 7:56:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And hook, line and sinker......Runner..your a gem:)

People, there is no battle over climate change, and we all know it.

We have "Leo Lane" with his "everything will be all right" which in translation means......I am the ship and the left are just the rudder....what a crock!

Kat
Posted by ORIGINS OF MAN, Saturday, 14 June 2014 11:22:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yep the credibility of 'science' has gone down the toilet since large sums of cash have corrupted any sense of accountability among the alarmist. Consensus science yeah!
Posted by runner, Saturday, 14 June 2014 11:51:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Climate change is about science but it is being subverted into a political matter. It is interesting in the US that politicians who support the fossil fuel industry obtain around three times the amount in donations than those who believe in climate change. Fossil fuel interests provide misinformation as indicated by:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html

Some people have posted that climate scientists should be taken to Court for perpetrating fraud; here is an interesting situation where it is working the other way.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/19/3439048/insurance-climate-class-action-flood/

American Physical Society says:
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

Quote from NASA which lists other peak scientific bodies which support anthropogenic climate change. The fundamental premise that climate change deniers suggest is that carbon dioxide has no influence on warming; it is not what the professional people are saying - Physicists.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Abbott and other deniers know better than US and International Scientific bodies:

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
Posted by ant, Sunday, 15 June 2014 9:38:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant: "American Physical Society says:
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." "

You may be interested to know that the APS is having second thoughts. Read more in article below, that opens with:

"The American Physical Society (APS) has signalled a dramatic turnabout in its position on "climate change" by appointing three notorious climate skeptics to its panel on public affairs (POPA)."

American Physical Society Sees The Light: Will It Be The First Major Scientific Institution To Reject The Global Warming 'Consensus'?

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/20/American-Physical-Society-Sees-The-Light-Will-It-Be-The-First-Major-Scientific-Institution-To-Reject-The-Global-Warming-Consensus
Posted by Raycom, Sunday, 15 June 2014 1:12:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As does any fraud-backer, ant ignores the science. There is no science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. If there is any such science, ant has no knowledge of it, but she fraudulently supports the baseless AGW assertion. I drew her attention to the science, which is that the human effect is trivial, and does not have the significance necessary for scientific notice. Despite what she says, ant ignores science. If her basis is not political, she should tell us what it is, because she has no science to support her position. She has cited the NCA Report, which is not science. Here is a helpful commentary on this document, in case it is mistaken for science.
“The White House recently released its latest “National Climate Assessment.” It is 841 pages of outlandish claims that reflect the lies generated by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. When you consider that the federal government spends an estimated $2.6 billion annually in grants for climate research, about the only beneficiaries are those “scientists” employed to further the hoax.
The UN’s IPCC was created in 1983 and has issued a series of reports whose sole intention has been to frighten people around the world with claims of global warming that are scientifically baseless.”
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/05/the-slow-sure-death-of-climate-change-lies/
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 15 June 2014 2:31:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom, you say (to ant):

"You may be interested to know that the APS is having second thoughts", then follow it up with a link to a blog article by James Delingpole who said:

"The American Physical Society (APS) has signalled a dramatic turnabout in its position on "climate change" by appointing three notorious climate skeptics (Lindzen, Christy and Curry) to its panel on public affairs (POPA)."

If people here don't know who James Delinpole is then just do a Google search.

For what it's worth, the following people are on APS's 'Panel on Public Affairs' - (see dates).

Chair: Robert L Jaffe (01/14 - 12/14)

Chair Elect: Steven Elliot Koonin (01/14 - 12/14)

Vice Chair: William A Barletta (01/14 - 12/14)

Past Chair: Robert Rosner (01/14 - 12/14)

Vice President: Dr Homer A Neal (01/14 - 12/14)

Member: Robin Cote (01/14 - 12/16)

Member: Philip E Coyle (01/13 - 12/15)

Member: Angel E Garcia (01/13 - 12/15)

Member: William H Goldstein (01/13 - 12/15)

Member: Mark William Goodman (01/12 - 12/14)

Member: R. Scott Kemp (01/12 - 12/14)

Industrial Fellow Observer: Steven Lambert (01/14 - 12/15)

Member: Prof Michael Marder (01/14 - 12/16)

Member: C William McCurdy (01/14 - 12/16)

Member: Timothy Isaac Meyer (01/12 - 12/14)

Member: Julia M Phillips (01/13 - 12/15)

Member: Stephen T Pratt (01/14 - 12/16)

Member: Michael D Rosenthal (01/13 - 12/15)

Member, FPS Rep.: Philip L Taylor (01/13 - 12/15)

Member: Thomas N Theis (01/12 - 12/14)

Member: James Daniel Wells (01/14 - 12/16)

Member, Chair of PPC: Michael S Turner (01/14 - 12/14)

Member, Congressional Fellow: Erin Elizabeth Boyd (01/14 - 12/14)

Advisor: Samuel H Aronson (01/14 - 12/16)

Advisor: Malcolm R Beasley (01/13 - 12/15)

http://www.aps.org/about/governance/committees/popa/index.cfm

Seems Mr Delingpole is making stuff up to fool people like Raycom
Posted by DavidK, Sunday, 15 June 2014 4:49:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo, your reference is about as good as requesting a report from Reynard the fox in relation to the state of the hen house.
Raycom, yes I have seen that article before about Lindzen et al.

The big but is that since the beginning of this year there have been a number of anomalous weather patterns that have occurred in a number of nations. Its something I've mentioned in relation to a number of articles on OLO.
An example, is small shrubs, ponds and lakes developing in tundra areas.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 15 June 2014 4:58:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't it interesting that Obama lost all interest in discussing the global warming scam with Tony Abbott, when something more important cane up, like a little international trouble.

Yes, he wants to use the scam to reward his election fund donors in the alternate energy industry, but he suddenly needs our support more.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 15 June 2014 5:12:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Delingpole is incorrect.The APS has not appointed Richard Lindzen, John Christy and Judith Curry to the Panel, but has requested them to assist in the Panel workshop considering the content of the current statement.. Delingpole’s optimism is not warranted, but there is nevertheless some chance that the APS will revert to a truthful statement to replace the current false one shown in ant's post.

The APS says:”Contrary to some blog reports, APS has not appointed Richard Lindzen, John Christy or Judith Curry to its Panel on Public Affairs (POPA). APS recently asked these scientists, as well as William Collins, Isaac Held and Benjamin Santer, to participate in a workshop to inform the POPA committee during the statement review process.”
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/climatereview.cfm
ant, as usual shows no scientific basis to link any of the items that she raises, in her post, to AGW, or any science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. As always, she steadfastly ignores science.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 15 June 2014 11:01:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK, assumably you would be aware that none of the 25 APS members you list has tabled empirical scientific evidence that substantiates the AGW hypothesis.

Ant, where is the empirical scientific evidence to back your assertion/inference that the anomalous weather patterns are human-induced?
Posted by Raycom, Sunday, 15 June 2014 11:46:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Assumably" (sic)

Presumably, Raycom, you are still spreading the lies of Mr Delingpole.

"The American Physical Society (APS) has signalled a dramatic turnabout in its position on "climate change" by appointing three notorious climate skeptics (Lindzen, Christy and Curry) to its panel on public affairs (POPA)."

Fact checking skills are not your strong point, obviously.

Neither is your understanding of APS structure, or the physics they represent.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
Posted by DavidK, Monday, 16 June 2014 6:53:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom asked "Ant, where is the empirical scientific evidence to back your assertion/inference that the anomalous weather patterns are human-induced?"
I have written about it quite a lot in relation to other articles.

Lawrence Krauss, a physicist has just reaffirmed that anthropogenic climate change is occurring on Q&A on Monday night a fortnight ago. You would expect a physicist to know a bit more about physics than other professionals.

What has caused the bodies of Japanese servicemen to to be washed out to sea in the Marshall Islands, reported June 2014?
Why has the fire season been coming earlier and earlier in Siberia, a wild fire was recorded in April 2014?
What about wildfires in Norway in January 2014?
Can you explain Raycom, how water the Inuit had been drinking in Northern Canadas was found to have pathogens (I do have references for these points, a National Geographic reference in this case).
Professor Lesack(2014) in studying the McKenzie River found that temperatures had increased over several decades by 3.2C in Spring, and 5.3C in Winter.
Erosion of coastlines in Alaska no longer protected by ice is occurring; why?
Inuit can no longer travel safely into many areas, why?
Hunting is becoming difficult for the Inuit, why?
Fish are being caught off Greenland that are normally caught further South in warmer waters?
You might like to also explain why small ponds/lakes and small shrubs are beginning to form on tundra?
Why does thermokarst failure occur? What happened to the Richardson Highway in Alaska, was that a case of thermokarst failure?
Why is it that we hear that temperatures have stopped increasing when this decade a number of records have been broken?
continued
Posted by ant, Monday, 16 June 2014 10:37:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued
You might like to reflect on why in the main glaciers are retreating?
Why is it necessary for hydrology to be studied in the Andes?
What illnesses have been moving North and South from tropical and semi tropical areas?
A paper referenced by 3,000 papers was released last month about changes in climate in the US, and expected changes (NCA).
Posted by ant, Monday, 16 June 2014 10:42:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear. Raycom. Taken in by the falsehoods of James Delingpole.

This particular one was a howler that two minutes of checking would have shown it for the error that it was, which makes me wonder why Delingpole wrote it.

You can take comfort in not being alone. This was splashed across most of the climate change denier sites in the latter part of March and even into May.

This fiasco should make you question Delingpole's credibility on climate science issues, but I doubt it will.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 16 June 2014 3:30:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No battle, nothing to see here, the Gravy Train has moved on. Be creative and invent another scare, how about "Controlling the Media" so that Aliens (ahem, Space) won't think we're nasty?
Posted by McCackie, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 8:33:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is amusing to see that it does not take much to rile the politically-correct DavidK, Agronomist and other AGW believers -- just make reference to notorious sceptical journo, James Delingpole, who obviously gets under their skin.

Ant, your assertions -- even if they include those of physicist Lawrence Krauss -- do not qualify as scientific evidence that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming.
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 3:43:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom

Why can't you admit Delingpole LIED?

Just because you chose to spread his LIES does not make them true.

Simple fact-checking gives credibility to argument - spreading LIES gives you no credibility.
Posted by DavidK, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 4:16:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good Grief Raycom, Delingpole interests me not at all. The man has no credibility, except among the extreme end of the climate change denial movement. He was tolerated for his ability to garner click throughs, but even the Telegraph found him too much. So now he runs his own on-line site.

The whole point of my comment was that Delingpole wrote a piece that was obviously wrong. Less than 5 minutes of checking would have shown that it was wrong. Despite it being so obviously wrong, fools like you fell for it – presumably because it supported jour beliefs. That is what I am laughing about
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 5:45:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom stated "Ant, your assertions -- even if they include those of physicist Lawrence Krauss -- do not qualify as scientific evidence that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming."

Raycom, name National Scientific peak bodies that do not believe in anthropogenic climate change.
Here is a list provided by NASA that do believe in man made climate change:
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

"(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
... " ... there are 197 entries altogether.

In relation to Professor Krauss you are suggesting a Physicist doesn't know anything about physics; you know better.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 8:29:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant: "... name National Scientific peak bodies that do not believe in anthropogenic climate change."

Whether they believe in AGW is immaterial.

I would suggest that you re-read Leo Lane's succinct post of Sunday, 15 June 2014 2:31:24 PM -- you may recall that it was in response to your earlier post.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 1:57:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As ant has demonstrated, in her post above, fraud-backers have no science to support the assertion that human emissions have any significant effect on climate. She relies on baseless statements by previously reputable scientific bodies, as do all fraud-backers.
Delingpole’s concern is to expose the truth, so the fraud-backers on this thread have made ridiculous attacks, to brand him a liar, because he was incorrect in a detail in an article which was essentially correct. He correctly named the scientific realists who will be involved in the reconsideration by the APS of its flawed statement on climate change. They are not part of the Panel, but are invited to advise the Panel. Delingpole may be over-optimistic in expecting that this will result in a truthful statement by the APS, but the incorrect detail in his post does not make him a liar. Fraud-backers want him branded a liar because he propagates the truth in relation to the AGW fraud.

There is no suggestion that Krauss does not know zcience. The fact is that he made a baseless incorrect statement, ant, and of course he should know better.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 3:28:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo, only you can come with a statement such as "...The fact is that he made a baseless incorrect statement" in relation to Professor Krauss.
On the particular Q&A program he stated that scientists fall over themselves to prove their peers wrong. If there really was controversy amongst scientists then he would be crucified by his peers, its not the first time he has made the same comment.

Leo where is your evidence that Professor Krauss is wrong. Your comment amounts to a Physicist doesn't know about physics. You comment on what's right and what's wrong in science Leo, what specialty do you have a PhD in?
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 3:48:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I did not see the Q&A with Lawrence Krauss, ant, but found an appropriate comment by someone who did:

“Because of the poisonously censorious atmosphere created by highly politicized warmists such as Krauss himself the skeptical scientists who continue to question and disprove the AGW "consensus" don't become famous at all. If anything they become infamous, often lose their gigs and suffer derision and ridicule on a grand scale. One of the labels they are tarred with is "denier", which Krauss subsequently went on to use (on Dean, by the way, not Bernardi).

He should also know that to debunk a theory you don't have to offer your own prediction. You just have to show the theory's predictions are wrong. And any rational person can see that the so-called deniers have done that time and time again over the last several years.

Lawrence Krauss. What a clown.”

http://www.matthaydenblog.com/2014/06/dean-king-krauss-and-bernardi-on-q-and-a.html
If you are looking for scientists who endorse the fraud of AGW, ant, I believe that you will only find lying clowns like Krauss

There is no science to demonstrate any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, so ignorance or dishonesty are the only bases for support of the AGW fraud.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 4:54:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo wrote "If you are looking for scientists who endorse the fraud of AGW, ant, I believe that you will only find lying clowns like Krauss"

Your statement says that the National Science bodies which represent thousands of scientists are all "lying clowns."
To debunk anything Leo you need evidence.

Climate science informs us that the atmosphere carries more moisture, and when it rains there is the potential for huge downpours. We know thats happened in US regions, China, Britain,Serbia/Bosnia, Austria in late 2013 and 2014. Lately in NE Brazil it went close to creating the need for a soccer match between US and Ghana to be cancelled.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 18 June 2014 6:00:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant says:” Your statement says that the National Science bodies which represent thousands of scientists are all "lying clowns.”. No it does not, ant. It says: "If you are looking for scientists who endorse the fraud of AGW, ant, I believe that you will only find lying clowns like Krauss"..
There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. No one with scientific background who asserts otherwise is telling the truth. The scientific bodies from which such statements have been procured by manipulations of fraud-backers are not representing the views of their member scientists. The Royal Society, for instance, changed its false statement of 2007, after complaints from its members. The American Physical Society is changing its false statement because of complaints from its members.

You really are a waste of space, ant, but I suppose if you were capable of organised, rational thought you would not be a fraud-backer.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 19 June 2014 12:28:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo, said "...: "If you are looking for scientists who endorse the fraud of AGW, ant, I believe that you will only find lying clowns like Krauss."
In relation to National Science bodies NASA says :"(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)" and lists 197 organisations.
You need to complete logical somersaults to maintain what you are saying; Leo.

Something I have noticed is that when I provide examples of anomalous weather patterns, deniers do not seek to argue against them, Leo. My example of rainfall in my last post wasn't taken up. Bit hard to argue in relation to weather that has happened; for example, Austria having 2.5 months supply of rain in a short period. My sources says "... From May 30 to June 1, 2014, parts of Austria received the amount of rain that normally falls in two-and-half months: 150 to 200 mm (5.9 to 7.9"), with some parts experiencing 250 mm (9.8")." The rainfall in Austria occurred twelve days after the the deluge in Serbia/Bosnia.
One example can be considered to be a normal variation in weather pattern; but, when there are several examples around the planet in a short time frame that shows a pattern. Other anomalous weather patterns display unusual warmth and snowfall patterns.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 19 June 2014 7:16:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, we have a journo who makes stuff up about 'deniers' being members of American Physical Society's POPA.

Then we have Raycom spreading those fraudulent claims and unable to admit they were wrong.

Then we have another fraudster spinning those same claims as some kind of truth.

And to top it off, Lane has the audacity to say the world's scientific institutions are fraudsters.

Not only James Delingpole has lost all credibility, so has Raycom and Leo!
Posted by DavidK, Friday, 20 June 2014 10:47:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You certainly seem to be confused about lying DavidK and you do not seem to grasp that lack of clarity is not the way to gain acceptance on OLO.

Delingpole was mistaken in details of his article, but his concern is to bring out the truth about the AGW fraud.

When you misrepresent what I say, David, are you mistaken, or are you lying? I said that statements issued by certain institutions were fraudulent. Institutions cannot be fraudsters, but fraud-backers can procure the issue of fraudulent statements from institutions. Surely you have sufficient education to understand that. Please inform us as to whether you think you are lying or mistaken, when you assert that I said that institutions are fraudsters, which is something I never said.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 20 June 2014 11:51:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just did a Google search of "leo lane" + "agw fraud"

WOW!

Then Leo Lane's OLO history

WOW WOW!

Will just leave you to play your little games Mr Lane(law) - fraud indeed!
Posted by DavidK, Friday, 20 June 2014 12:58:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo, how can somebody be mistaken; and then, have any authority in showing fraud?

I do not believe Leo you can call me a "fraud backer" when you take into account thermokarst lakes, shrubs growing in areas previously being permafrost, and thermokarst failure in the Arctic region. These things are beyond dispute; they have been spoken about by climate scientists; and are observable on a number of clips.
If you are not able to give any evidence against these matters then your comments can be seen to be absolute rubbish when you speak about fraud.
Posted by ant, Friday, 20 June 2014 1:17:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK, you have given the normal response of a fraud-backer to a straight question; a puerile attempt to smear the questioner. A futile attempt, despite the practice you must have had as a fraud-backer, answering queries as to any science to back the assertion of any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.

The question was as to whether you are mistaken or lying.

If we apply your test, as you applied it to James Delingpole, then of course, you are lying.

We have ant, the science-phobe, objecting to her status as a fraud-backer. All she has to do is refer us to science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Without such science, assertion of AGW is fraudulent. Steele, an ardent fraud-backer, objected to the term but finally conceded that there was no valid basis of objection to it. Without science, ant resorts to reference to melting ice and retreating glaciers, and ignores extended ice cover in the Antarctic, and advancing glaciers, and the fact that there has been no warming for 17 years.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 20 June 2014 2:30:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You didn't answer my question Leo about thermokarst lakes, shrubs, and thermokarst failure. If you cannot give any reasonable answer then it just shows that you write rubbish, Leo.
Posted by ant, Friday, 20 June 2014 2:57:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidK, I drew attention to Delingpole's article in good faith. Leo Lane pointed out that it was incorrect. Consequently, that was the end of the matter as far as I am concerned.

You and your fellow AGW believers have been promoting the hypothesis that increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming. It is now up to you to produce the empirical scientific evidence to substantiate that hypothesis. The IPCC and all its hangers-on have been trying to do so for some 30 years, but have failed.

Assertions -- irrespective of who makes them -- do not constitute scientific evidence.

Those who portray assertion as scientific evidence are engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct.
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 20 June 2014 11:30:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom, you stated "... It is now up to you to produce the empirical scientific evidence...."

Raycom, you haven't read, or do not understand what I have written about when using as examples: thermokarst lakes, thermokarst failure, or shrubs growing in permafrost areas. Permafrost means that what ever the season is the soil remains frozen whether it is Summer or some other season, it has been that way for Centuries until recent times. Thermokarst failure has been displayed by a major landslide blocking the Richardson Highway in Alaska. There are houses in Alaska where their foundations have been undermined through thermokarst failure. In other spots crevices have formed where the soil has slumped through the soil warming. Shrubs did not previously grow in tundra areas years ago except for on the verge of tundra areas.
Thermokarst lakes are formed when permafrost melts in hollows with the melt water remaining in that hollow.

AS far as I know ice melts when it is warmed. The Inuit have not experienced whats going on over the last few years in living history.
Please feel free to debunk this empirical evidence of warming.
Then we can discuss glaciers in the Andes, Greenland, other aspects of Alaska, epidemiological matters in Northern Canada and subtropical areas, methane ( in Arctic Circle ), and perhaps feedback systems.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 22 June 2014 3:34:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The topic is the assertion of human caused global warming,by ant, and ant is now introducing local, not global, warming, into the discussion which is irrelevant to the topic of human emissions.. In any event, whether global warming is taking place or not, the question is whether there is any science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. The answer to ant’s irrelevant questions relating to local warming has no bearing on this. She is simply evading the question. Her question, in any event, opens up questions about the expanding ice at the south pole, and about currently advancing glaciers, which by ant’s logic would prove global cooling.

Speaking of ant’s logic, she asserts that as I did not answer her irrelevant question, what I write is rubbish. This is an irrational statement, indicative of a deficiency in her educational background such as to render her unqualified to carry on a rational and logical discussion.You say. ant, that you rely on science to justify your support of AGW, so you are asked to refer us to science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Until you satisfy that precondition, global warming is not the question.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 22 June 2014 9:14:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you have read my posts you would have noticed that I have used global examples, Leo. In past posts I have mentioned other parts of the globe. Even in my last post I mentioned tropical areas, Leo.

Leo, it is funny how you responded straight after I had made this comment: "...Climate science informs us that the atmosphere carries more moisture, and when it rains there is the potential for huge downpours. We know thats happened in US regions, China, Britain,Serbia/Bosnia, Austria in late 2013 and 2014."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16402&page=0#286041

You might be interested in this site Leo.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=281
Posted by ant, Sunday, 22 June 2014 9:58:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=greenland+melt+due+to+hot+spot
seems hot magna/not global warming is melting ya glaciers ant.

that and rampant global fraud

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html

seems they would love ever decreasing energy units
to gamble with and buy up coal plants just to shut them down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgvD4C87MYo#t=141
ant/you may be one of the few clever ones getting money from your power bill/via the 55 cent buy back[5 times production costs..anyhow the plan is we all wil be paying more than than by 2016,,so you took the bribe//now got to aboid guilt.

glbally industry was winding down
but this green boom has kicked off china in a big way
but think//all that heating [if any]..is attributable to extra green manufactureng as we 'transition via lots more industry..lol..to green[that fails after the pole shifts..and the earth goes into the dark ages[sans even the sun to warn/let alone fall onto your power cells..and you will thn bare the guilt..of murder/as we hastilly try to get power back up.

its small minded fear ego freaks/name calling and lying
i post links..u ignore

fine

http://tarpley.net/the-end-of-fukuyama-re-starting-history-after-a-quarter-century-of-unipolar-globalization/

http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=articles&id=2009_07_09_buddy-cooling.html

2000 rebutal links
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=global_warming&id=main.html

http://patriotrising.com/2014/06/18/amount-fraud-across-board-epic-weve-never-seen-anything-like/

here is how they make ya papers
http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
when govts go broke/they will recoup the debt/from those who stole
[theft never gains lawfull title[them solar cells were begotten by fraud
http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35385/Repudiate-the-Public-Debt-How-About-Corporate-Personhood-and-Monopoly-Central-Banking/

in the future we all get free energy/not just you scammers
http://www.redressonline.com/2014/06/materialism-and-misery-and-the-need-for-change/
Posted by one under god, Monday, 23 June 2014 7:11:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one under god, you provided a site that suggested magna is causing glaciers to melt from underneath in Greenland. What has been noticed over the last few years is that there is melt water lying on top of the Greenland for pretty well 100% of the whole ice sheet for a limited time. An indication that it is more than hot magna spots that is a problem. Besides, there are thousands of glaciers around the plant that are retreating, only a very small number are remaining constant or increasing in size. There has been no discussion about glaciers in the Andes or Himalayas that have hot spots. Apart from the Thwaites glacier in Antarctica; which may, or may not have a magna hotspot underneath; there are four major glaciers that have not been identified as having hotspots that are retreating.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 25 June 2014 2:12:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy