The biblical prophets were independent of the regime and risked their lives telling kings such unpopular truths which they didn't want to hear.

In contrast, scientists sit at the king's table, yet there are some who wish to confer on them the status of prophets, then combine it with the ruthless power of the state.

Had global-warming been real, then it would be better to be fried alive by the sun than to succumb to the loss of freedom by human tyrants.

It astounds me that a so-called academic can dismiss the overwhelming proportion of climate scientists as "the politically driven orthodox".

Godo says:"It astounds me that a so-called academic can dismiss the overwhelming proportion of climate scientists as 'the politically driven orthodox'"

Well Godo, I suggest you read "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin (a theoretical physicist) it will blow your socks off with an exposé of the shenanigans that goes on in the name of science.

There's a logical fallacy at the end of Don's article. He seems to be saying that there's something wrong with the 'climate change message' because there is still a (now politically powerful) minority that disagree with it.

This is of course ridiculous. There will always be a minority that disagree with whatever message that might require collective or political action.

To use use Don's logic on another scientific 'controversy': Is there something wrong with vaccination? Well, the science says no, but there is a very vocal and ardent minority that like to spread doubt about it.
Using Don's logic, there must be something wrong with the vaccination 'message', and by implication that there's something wrong with the science behind it because the 'orthodox' have had a virtual monopoly on the message and yet there are still plenty of people who are unconvinced.

The thing about democracy is that collective action certainly takes a great deal of persuasion to change the status quo. It is actually quite easy for a minority to block that change, especially if that minority has powerful friends and that collective action may actually require a cost. Don, The 'virtual monopoly on the mass media' you seem to think that the 'orthodox' has enjoyed never existed.

OH DEAR GOD0..MATE..REALLY..PLEASE DONT JUST ARROT BACK THE RUBBISH THE MEDIA FED YOU AND YOU LEARNED IN SCHOOL

PLEASE THINK..DEAR CHILD
ignorance is no excuse

HERE..try reading the real truth
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=global_warming&id=main.html

think..matey..if the warming is true//why all the lies
[mate paid blogging..isnt working well for you/get a real job eh?
we want our money back syolen by enrons energy pricing scam

yet more info for you to blatently ignore
http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

oh and dont forget al gore lied 35 times
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html

take ya fingers out of ya eyes and see the truth..really can set you free.but like ant..on the other thread..its the truth getting out your masters dread.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html

…The debate on climate change has unknowingly metamorphosed into an internal war between the old guard Libertarian “Moral Relativists” of the 60’s; usurped by the fundamentalist conservatives: The natural state of the human mind!

…A war of philosophies will not a merry climate make!

the population has been so dumbed down to believe science teaches that order came from chaos that believing the gw scam is a natural progression. Pigheaded blindness dominates the true believers as fraud, atrocious predictions proving false and demonising one speaking truth is common place. The 'science ' is certainly not settled despite the rhetoric.

Don, ' Given that they (the orthodox, who accept the science) have had virtually a monopoly of the mass media,'?? Murdoch media - The Australian and other News corp papers - 65% of print media; Fox News - huge in the USA - not to mention Murdoch's other media - all blatant propagandists for global warming deniers.
Universities - yes, good science is their business. They exist to seek and teach truth, skeptically, that's why they teach the latest understanding of global warming and what must be done about it. They would not last long if they purveyed lies.

And what's this about governments being anti-democratic in taking climate action? No government has banned emission of fossil CO2 and methane, or for that matter smoking. That would be anti-democratic while there's still a significant minority who want to go on doing it.

What governments have done, with the support of a majority of voters, is protect the health of all people by making smokers/ emitters pay a tax/price on their emitting habits to cover the damage they do to communities present and future. I'd say that's democracy in action!

Then what happens? People/ corporations to as they are supposed to - avoid the taxes by switching to cleaner habits.

"Consider the situation.
Bill Moyers written during George W. Bush administration

<<..Never has there been an administration so disciplined in secrecy, so precisely in lockstep in keeping information from the people at large>>

and -- in defiance of the Constitution --

<<..from their representatives in Congress...Never has the powerful media oligopoly ... been so unabashed in reaching like Caesar for still more wealth and power.>>

<<..Never have hand and glove fitted together so comfortably to manipulate free political debate, sow contempt for the idea of government itself, and trivialize the peoples' need to know." -->>

THE SEEDS THEY SOW*

source/article
http://issues.org/30-3/steven/
johan9/post..@,http://issues.org/30-3/steven/#comment-13783,

&*Your comment is awaiting moderation.*#

Ignorance is no excuse

HERE..try reading the real truth
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=global_warming&id=main.html

think..matey..if the warming is true//why all the lies
[mate paid blogging..isnt working well for you/get a real job eh?
we want our money back stolen by enrons energy pricing scam
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html
yet more info for you to blatantly ignore
http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

oh and dont forget al gore lied 35 times
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html

take ya fingers out of ya eyes and see the truth..really can set you free
http://whatreallyhappened.com/
its the truth getting out your foreign/multinational\tax free dual passport holding treachery,,,being revealed/reviled..,,your masters dread.

Biden: “I Don’t Own a Single Stock or Bond”,
YET..has 11 Investment Funds
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/biden-i-dont-own-a-single-stock-or-bond-has-11-investment-funds/

Can Democrats running in 2016 give the fake class warfare a rest? First Hillary claimed that she left the White House broke (and bought two mansions) and that after making $100 million she’s not truly well off.

Now, never one to let his foot leave his mouth
for too long, Joe Biden had to jump in and cry poverty..LOl

…And OUG

…Just to back you up on scamming of Enron and all it’s cousins: Those little mandated $100 deposits to NSW power companies, that were so insistently collected by them as a precursor to connecting power to your residence, have gone missing!

...The legitimate request for the $100 refund will be met with derision, scoff and an outright LOL. Bad luck buddy, we have it, and you will not be getting it back!

OUG:

...Just to clarify the above; the $100 was collected under the guise of a bond...and since when is a bond not repayable? Scam scam scam!

<<a politically powerful) minority that disagree with it>>

What about the politically powerful minority who are milking it for all its worth?

The ABC, SBS...ambitious accademics seeking a career booster/funding (I see the latest edition of NewScientist is still publishing cooling towers when it talks about CO2 emissions !)

We have just had a round the world trip to drum up a coalition of carbon deniers, so that shows where AU's political agenda is focused on.

Our govt ; now wants to scrap the carbon price in favour of our tax money going into big company's being paid to clean up their act.

2.5 billion $ worth of clean up to big business, then what more billions of tax payers money supporting big business.

That cenerio is open to waste and fraud.

>"Given that they have had virtually a monopoly of the mass media, the government and the scientific academies, doesn't that point to a fundamental problem with the 'climate change' message?"

Yes!, Don. It certainly does. Never before have so many people been subjected to such sustained and widespread propaganda. It is driven by a religious-like belief based on mass group think with the leaders being the academics (in the soft sciences, arts, journalism, etc.).

It's interesting to notice how rapidly the change is now occurring. Until recently, sites like 'Climate Spectator', were dominated by vitriolic climate cultists. They were really abusive calling people who question their beliefs "Deniers" and "Dinosaurs" and more.

But look at the change now. The comments yesterday on a post by John Connor, chief executive of The Climate Institute: "Separating the climate dinosaurs from an evolved citizenry" http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/6/23/policy-politics/separating-climate-dinosaurs-evolved-citizenry

Not the content and tone of the 30 comments. This is a massive change.

THANKS DIVER..[i allready decided not to pay the next power bill]
on principle,,..or converting the whoe home to off peak[22 hours of powr per day[at half price\..sounds a great deal.

power goes off 6;30..back on 8;20..[some nights they dont switch it off to boost the off peak hot water/[gas works best]...ANYHOW.

but the reason for writing was this education payback thing ;
students loans..its great they are only at 4 percent/whas not told however..is that/its directly loaned by world bank/to load up debt/on those best expected to repay the debt

to be clear..its not govt lending the money/but the world bank/to assure its cash flow/thats how im fighting back..see every banknote;..the bankers get[goes directly to the fed;there to get leverage..to a credit line..for every dollar/banked;the bank get credit to lend out 10 more..[i have heard up to 120 more/but marginal resrve borrowing=1cash=19 credit.

now the money..imf is lending to our students[is the same money [leveraged]..by joe cocky gifting 10 BILLION TO THE FED..[who leveraged joes 10..INTO 100 billion..THEY gift to the world bank[who leveraged it into1 TRILLION..BUT WHO TO BEST HOLD THAT DEBT;..STUDENTS

I BLAME THE DELIBERATE DUMBING DOWN OF EDUCATION
AND IGNOANCE LOVING ITS PAINS..[we must resist our kids borrowing back joes 10 billion to pay out..1 trillion..in time[plus intrest]

its a grand high-treason
but where doth theot stop?

that roses 1 is a very clever guy/the best money can buy
but he is a sellout..;HES SADLY ON THE WRONG SIDE..he could do much

but poor man thinks he has sold his soul
but thats not yeT A DONE DEAL
god loves the repentant sinner..simply go and sin no more[or help end this insane treason at its root[the libs have done all thEY WANTED ..nice new cashy slush reseARCH FUND..nice private puvlic servants pension fund[also looted]

stop giving the banks cash..tomorrow they steal all yours
its time we realised cash in hand=proof we own the fed.[we got num,bers on the securitised paper[the line through the dollar bill means securitised/not dollar.

Well, A theory remains just that, until it is proven, then it is just fact?
I plan not to accept this theory, but just make use of the precautionary principle, at least until it is either disproved by emerging facts or sea levels has risen by at least 3 metres, thereby providing enough evidence for the doubters.
A rise of three metres, will destroy most of our coastal plains, and or, the cities built on them; and, around 70% of the domestic economy!
Now,if one is to invest there, then maybe houseboats, would at least satisfy the precautionary principle, or serve us well, when next we have another one in one thousand year, floods?
Perhaps as early as next summer?
When perhaps we could experience, yet another La Nina, weather event?
Is the fact we seem to be having more of these, down to climate change, or just natural variation?
In any event, what harm is done, preparing for either; but particularly, if there's a buck to be made, just doing so?
Rhrosty.

Fhrosty, gravity is a scientific theory. Are you going to stand under an apple tree while somebody is shaking the tree which has ripe fruit. In other words many hypotheses have been been made and found to be untrue until a theory is established. A theory is neither a guess or a hypothesis but supported by empirical data.

Here on Climateprogress is an offer of $10,000 for anybody to prove that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. The challenge has been made by a physicist. My guess is you would need to show a theory that carbon dioxide created from fossil fuel has no impact to sunlight. Fossil fuels are virtually carbon sequestered into the earth over millions of years, in geological terms I guess we are using it in the blink of an eyelid.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451810/physicist-offers-climate-denier-reward/

Bugsy says: 'There's a logical fallacy at the end of Don's article. He seems to be saying that there's something wrong with the 'climate change message' because there is still a (now politically powerful) minority that disagree with it.'

I didn't say anything about 'a politically powerful minority'. What I tried to say was that the learned academies, the government, all political parties (the Coalition up to Abbott's appointment as Leader, and his government still says that 'it accepts the science', whatever that means) and the mainstream media (even The Australian said that it accepted the science of global warming and published very little dissenting material until quite recently) have been preaching the same sermon for a long time. Yet the electorate has not bought the take-home message. Why not? My suggestion is that the message was oversold, exaggerated, and devoid of real substance.

I know you didn't mention mention a 'politically powerful minority' Don, they are my words.

The fact remains that the minority was always there, now it is more politically powerful.

I dispute your claim that the electorate 'hasn't bought' the message (nor that the Australian has not published dissenting views until recently). They may have elected a government that has climate sceptics it's core, but there are plenty of reasons to blame that on other factors.

Bugsy

The reason for becoming powerful is because of a morphing into the majority.

Billionaires with vested interests are not "the majority" nutter.

Some considerable organisation goes into challenging the scientific consensus on AGW....usually spear-headed by people who aren't qualified scientifically.

So much so, that now "skeptics" can command significant air-time on MSM, despite having little qualification or expertise on the complexities of the subject.

The principal argument buttressing the "skeptic" movement appears to rest not on the science - but on the suggestion that climate scientists are all involve in a gargantuan scam.

With so many scientists from the various disciplines encompassing climate science agreeing with the AGW conclusion, conspiracy is the only avenue left to challenge the consenus.

I wouldn't expect you to understand Poirot, but it is the science that proves it's a scam.

That & the number of times the promoters have been caught fiddling the books. It is unraveling, & it appears the planet is the worst enemy on the scammers. It is making their models look like child's play, or a fraud, which is what they are of course.

The other indication of course is Obama. He's all for it, which really should give any thinking person a reason to pause. So far he has managed to shift over 5 billion tax payer dollars to his campaign funders in the alternative industries, mostly just before their companies went broke.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Hasbeen,

"....but it is the science that proves it's a scam."

Lol! - tell us more...apparently you've "got the maths".

Any experience in atmospheric physics or oceanography...perhaps glaciology?

"That & the number of times the promoters have been caught fiddling the books...."

Which times, Hasbeen?

Which times that don't have the word "exonerated" attached at the conclusion?

Bugsy is spot on with his assessment that multi-billionaires with their fingers in the fossil fuel pie are the ones that bankroll the sham that is climate "skepticism".

Godo - Quote "It astounds me that a so-called academic can dismiss the overwhelming proportion of climate scientists as "the politically driven orthodox"."

Please explain where you arrive at that assumption?

Remember the fake emails and the global warming video by Al Gore wich turned out to be mostly incorrect.

Hasbeen, sounds as though you should have a crack at the challenge of obtaining $10,000.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451810/physicist-offers-climate-denier-reward/
You will need to convince a physicist that he knows nothing about the characteristics of carbon dioxide.

You might also like to reflect on:
http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/nearly-9000-more-homes-lost-to-flooding-as-chinas-41-day-deluge-continues/

In a previous post I stated ... 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. Just lately more US States have been hit by anomalous rainfall.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451774/midwest-flooding/

Ho hum, more endless assuming what they haven't proved, appeal to absent authority, appeals to non-existent final wisdom, appeals to misrepresented consensus, reliance on an empire of facile, dodgy and dishonest manipulations of data, more ad hominem sneering, there's just one thing the warmists haven't got - data to back up their claims.

All you need to know to understand the entire debate is this: CO2 emissions have gone up and up and up, and ALL the warmist models predictions of temperature were wrong.

The very idea that the science is "settled"- that without showing reason or evidence, you have reached final unquestionable truth in reliance on authority, is so unscientific, it's laughable. It's the opposite of science.

"Ho hum, more endless assuming what they haven't proved, appeal to absent authority, appeals to non-existent final wisdom, appeals to misrepresented consensus, reliance on an empire of facile, dodgy and dishonest manipulations of data, more ad hominem sneering..."

Ho hum...here comes JKJ again wheeling out his generic rant ad nauseam.

One size fits all as far as debate goes for Jardine - on any subject.

"The very idea that the science is "settled".. (blah, blah, blah...)

The "only" bods who spruik the "science is settled" line are 'skeptics' who again wheel it out at any and every opportunity and attempt to paste it onto "real" scientists who "never" maintain that "the science is settled".

Just some light relief.

Here in Melbourne our mean temperature for May was the third highest on record (The equal first highest was in 2007) a balmy 2.5 degrees above the average mean for the month plus we had a record number of days over 20 degrees.

So far in June we have yet to experience even one day drop to the mean temperature of 14.1 C.

Of course this is weather.

Climate is when you have 9 of your top 10 highest average yearly temperature readings occurring in the last 15 years.

@Steelredux

<<So far in June we have yet to experience even one day drop to the mean temperature of 14.1 C.>>

Betya you get it today!
It's brass monkeys cold in Sydney this morning.

<<when you have 9 of your top 10 highest average yearly temperature readings occurring in the last 15 years>>
Wow. You have to hand it to the AGW believers they are at the cutting edge of statistical/trend analysis. I'd love to see how that type of think would perform if applied to stocks and shares --lets see now|:

If share X has hit a new high in 9 successive days it is guaranteed to be the next Apple?
Somehow I couldnt see Ant's Dr. Christopher Keating putting his $10,000 on that!

Climate is when you have 9 of your top 10 highest average yearly temperature readings occurring in the last 15 years.
SteeleRedux,

Climate is also something you can do sfa about. A tax won't solve it but handing out easy living to make people breed more & easier is certainly the main man-made contributor to climate change simply because of too many people using too many polluting practices.
Reduce the population & you will delay the next ice age by a week in 8000 years. That's the reality of it all. No science crap, no nothing just plain reality. Unlike scientists & left wing politicians I'm not making a career out of saying this paid for by taxpayers money.
In fact the climate is not an immediate threat, superstitious religious fruitloops are.

‘morning Don,

“Of shoes and ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings”

Or, Of deniers, flat Earthers, polar bears, conservatives, sea rises, melting glaciers, consensus, polar ice or renewables and things?

We are often told by the ALP, Greens and much of our media just how well the de-carbonization thingy is going in the rest of the world and that we are “falling behind”.

Just as well I think? Why would we want to buy into the unfolding CAGW disaster in Europe?

It’s been a great scam for everyone except the public who have provided every cent of the 800 bn Euro's (US$ 1 trillion) sucked out of their economy since 2004.

So who were the “winners”?

Energy, banking, investors, wealthy land owners, renewable industries, political elites, emission certificate traders, university research renters, the unelected EU commissioners, the UN’s FCCC and the IPCC.

Nice game if you can “get in” on the action but in the end, when it all falls apart and the bill pops through the mailbox, the public again pays for this folly.

New Report: Alarm Over Climate Turns People Off - The Times, 24 June 2014

EU Climate Push Threatens Energy Security, Poland Warns - Bloomberg, 23 June 2014

Facing €200 Billion Solar Bill, Italy Plans Retrospective Subsidy Cuts - Reuters, 23 June 2014

German Solar Sector Collapses As Government Plans ‘Sonnen’ Tax - PV Tech, 20 June 2014

Germany’s ‘Green’ Policy Threatens EU Climate Goals - The American Interest, 21 June 2014

Green Investors Abandon Spain After Renewable Subsidies Are Cut - Financial Times, 24 June 2014

Shale Duel: Is It Time To Frack In Britain? - Prospect Magazine, July 2014

Australia “falling behind”? Thank goodness for that.

individual, you suggested an ice age may be coming our way...you stated "Reduce the population & you will delay the next ice age by a week in 8000 years." In geological terms I gather we are due for an ice age.
While the science is still being established in relation to the impact of the sun on climate; many scientists are suggesting that due to reduction in sunspot activity we should be going through a cooling period at present. BUT,cooling has certainly not been taking place, it is a myth that is perpetrated by deniers.
All around the planet, glaciers are in a state of retreat except for some examples. In relation to Greenland, it has been stated that there could be some thermal activity in the NE being part of the reason for the quick retreat. However, surface melt over the last few years indicates there is more than just thermal activity going on.

I wonder what percentage of people who live in cities as against the percentage living in rural areas believe in anthropogenic climate change.
A few months ago when listening to the radio a farmer who identified himself as a climate change champion talked about the impact on farms through climate change. Farmers are very practical people, if they did not believe something to be true they would not be involved. He stated that keeping a close watch on change in weather patterns over a lengthy period convinced him and some of his colleagues to become climate change champions.

@Ant,

One Just has to love the way true believers simplify things:

<<A few months ago when listening to the radio a farmer who identified himself as a climate change champion talked about the impact on farms through climate change...[his] stated that …a close watch on change in weather patterns over a lengthy period convinced him and some of his colleagues to become climate change champions.>>

DUH! I have not met anyone who does not believe in “climate change”.

The bit that most people don’t get is that climate change is all to do with anthropogenic CO2 and if we stopped emissions of anthropogenic CO2 (for whatever time span you’d like to fiddle in) we would stop climate change –total and utter BS!

ant,
Many people are falling into the academic trap of if it doesn't happen within your time then it isn't happening.
There is a climate change, there are always climate changes, that's how Planet Earth became the way it is. If it were up to the global warming crowd we'd still be crawling on all fours & eat each other because they're dead against evolution.
Climate change is what causes evolution !

SPQR, individual, I think everybody realises that climate change is happening over large time frames. The difference being that the level of human created carbon dioxide is about 130 plus times greater now than it had been millions of years ago. It is possible to differentiate the CO2 derived from fossil fuels compared to other sources. If you don't agree please show the relevant science.

If you feel that we are witnessing normal climate change you might try for the $10,000. But telling a physicist about the characteristics of CO2 would be like telling cricketer Sachin Tendulkar how to bat.

Ant,

<<if you feel that we are witnessing normal climate change you might try for the $10,000...>>

LOL

$10,000 does not demonstrate a high degree of confidence!

$10,000 in todays world is chicken feed. If your physicist friend was really confident he's bet his huge retirement super, his house, his car and even his wife-- then the bet might be worth taking up!

The $10,000 is being offered by an individual SPQR, quite an amount really. I guess your really saying you cannot meet the challenge.

Here is a short clip showing how CO2 takes up heat.

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/1906/how-co2-traps-sun39s-warmth

DEAR ANT BRAIN..HEAT RISES,,can you comprehend that/so heat dont sink[get it yet]
http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2014/05/14/deep-sea-volcanos-replace-consumers-as-blame-for-global-warmingclimate-change/
i think i just got it.you cant read
ant BRAIN CANT READ/FAIR ENOUGH,, get ya mum to rad this to you

damm i know he is only a computer program
http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
but they seem so real,,BUT the science must be settled cause its FRAUD[DONT LOOK TOO CLOSE/..JUST GET THE TAX THOUGH

MUST TAX CARBON
FORGET FACTS..SCIENCE LIES
75 PERCENT..OF ALL RESPONDAnts.,,not aklll scientists

Decades after rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations was blamed on the industrial revolution, scientists discovered geological regions of volcanic activity on the ocean floor that emit – among other things – methane and carbon dioxide.

Even as vast new sources of greenhouse gas emissions were being discovered from within the ocean, the politics of Global Warming to blame “consumers” had already been decided.

In 1977, scientists diving in the submersible Alvin made a stunning discovery on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean: vents pouring hot, mineral-rich fluids from beneath the seafloor. In addition, they also found the vents were inhabited by previously unknown organisms that thrived in the absence of sunlight. These discoveries forever changed our understanding of Earth and life on it.

NEW SCIENTIST:

“The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before. The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.”

Commercial mining of Hydrothermal Vents and more aggressive oil drilling techniques deeper into magma regions adds additional risk that CO2 and/or methane (natural gas) will find its way into the atmosphere.

You're acting more like a worm -- trying to wriggling out of it --than an Ant.

I'm betting that $10,000 is only a tiny,tiny fraction of this "individuals" assets.And the advertising/publicity alone he is getting from the stunt must be worth at least $10,000.

If he was really confident why is he not tabling his super,his house, his car etc?

i try TO IGNORE THESE FOOLSAHH/WITH/LIES
YA GOTTA LOVE.. the/NEST FEATHERING
N

JUSt get the coal price up..TILL
THE..55 CENTS solar payoff/LOOKS CHEAPER

YOUR GREAT GRAND-kids will reap the pain/OF THE Lies
done by fear mongering spin/of big money/shat/down the drain.
THINK WHAT..OUR POWER EXPENDITURE /MONIES\USED TO SUPPORT[family entertainment/no fun park/no hrse-riding/no swinning/fishing..scuba/or/other recreation[we must pay our power bill]

NO MORE FAMILY TREats/thanks to you greenie freaks.
but..PLEASE NOTE..THE COST..OF COAL[BEFORE YOU GUYS BEgan screwing them/..and shutting theM DOWN..WITH GABON CREDITS/TO MITIGATE CARBON

COAL GENERATION GONE..FOR THE FUTURE
SEE/CARBON CREDIT\out priced/KEEPING-CHEAPPRICED COAl/GENERATION[6 ICIENCIES/NOW LOST...6/CENTS A WATt]/but greenies are burNING THE KNOWING/PEAK EFFICIENCIES/we painfully attained/gone[move on]

THING IS..THEse..fools..DONT REALISE..WHY THEY ARE GETTING NEAR 4 TIMES THE COal price..generated powER PRICES....[THE EXPECTATION IS THAT keep doubling up the price of coal/and 55 cents buy back will look cheap.

but carbon credits are shutting
down coal/scapping/thE COPPER/ETC ETC
just put in/for a grant*..do the numbers

the algore/billionares\need the tax..[OR RATHER THE DAMAge./that credit can do to the rest of you[yankIES ARE SHUTTING DOWN/HAVE BLACKOUTS/[CARBon abaitment..[euro carbon credits/soLD YA OUT/mate

how to say..[nay demand/thEY INCLUDE/future/cost\PRICES/
BUT/IT]WOULD/REVEAL..WHEN THE PRICE PARITY
FINALY SETTLES..TRIPPLE THE SOLAR/COST TODAY.

RELitivly speaking..55 cent buy back mob
wiLL THEN BEGIN TO FEEL..AS WE WHO GAVE THEM..;..THeir free lunch feel today

[SURE WAY BACK..IF/MY POWER BILLS/WERE the same..[as theirs/who took\the bait/as token\suppliers/while the mates\rates/run hectares/of solar cash cows

as/THEIR\free solar cells/CAME/by govt malfeasance
they belong/to the people/PROOF OF CRIMENAL MALFEASENCE

IF..I TOO..Was a huge/POWER\user[pOWER-abuser]
IF SO..THEN YES I WOULD TOO HAVE SNAFLED UP 55 CENTS extortion froM everyone else/THEN YELL/..AT THE DENIERS/HOw low WE ARE\IGNORANT/UNIFORMED/HOLLOW-COST DENIERS

i now seE THOSE FACTORY ROofS/AND Roves\hectARES/OF GOVT CASH-COW/LARGESS.[READ..CASH-INCOME stream]

MASSIVE^..income stream$$$..THEN/RECALL/WHOLE Stadia/universities/schOOL OVELKS/FULL OF THOUSANDS OF CASh cow/INCOME STRAMS/them semii private public buILDINGS..[run/for beurocrATES/BY BEURocrats..;AS A WAY TO DO A HUGE CASH CRAB'from the public purse

[NON TRANSFERABLE/contract
once sold/privatized?]
YOU JUST WATCH/LAWYERS KNOW..escape clauses.[BE WARNED]
PROCEEDS OF CRIME Cannot gain lawfull title[one sit in your gone]

Graham Y wrote an article about the negative comments on twitter; perhaps he needs to be taking on board the ad hominem comments mainly emanating from his conservative mates here also.

Something that has amused me is that Watts had become involved in a debate about the extent/volume of ice in the Arctic region.
The extent of ice in 2013 was greater than in 2012, Watts argued that it proved that warming is not happening. The but is, that the ice is becoming thinner and the volume of ice is continually decreasing. There are several buoys measuring temperature above and below ice, depth of snow and ice; which equals objective data Watts argues against.

Dear SPQR,

You wrote;

“Betya you get it today!
It's brass monkeys cold in Sydney this morning.”

Nope. In Melbourne it was 16C nearly 2 degrees above average. But I will admit to missing a 12.3C on the 19th so the has been 1 day at or below the mean.

The stats up your way have been pretty impressive too.

“Sydney Observatory Hill had its warmest May on record in 2014, with mean maximum temperatures of 23.2 °C, 3.8 °C above the historical average and 0.5 °C above the previous record, set in 2007.”

Other notable figures include;

19 consecutive days above 22 °C, more than double the previous May record of 9 days (1978, 2007)

Four consecutive days above 25 °C on the 22nd-25th, a late-season record

Only one day below 20 °C, the fewest on record for May (previous record 4 days in 2013)

As to annual mean maximums of the 6 occasions it has reach 23 degrees or over 5 have occurred since 2001.

This year is the fourth warmest start to the year ever recorded after 2006, 2004, and 1998.

There is a positive though. While last month you only had 1 day at or below the monthly average max temperature this month there have been three.

Thank God! It seems we have a cooling planet and there is nothing to worry about.

Dear Steeleredux,

<<Thank God! It seems we have a cooling planet and there is nothing to worry about>>

Ah ha! and there's the rub. Even if someone was able to do a cherry pick similar to yours and come up with a group of colder/coldest results it would still seen as evidence of AGW. Because, AGW theology maintains that it will both get hotter and colder --and wetter and dryier

It's hard to prevail in those heads we win and tails you lose games. Which makes me wonder why Ant's physicist friend was sooooo measly and timid with his bet. What is the IPCC's level of certainiy again 97...98%? I mean, if you had that level of certainty that red 13 would come up trumps next spin of the wheel at the casino wouldnt you bet your house and car on it?

We should all be very grateful that Al Gore has come to Australia to “endorse” the abolition of our CAGW response.

We have now joined the rest of the world in rejecting both the “science” and the politics of CAGW.

There are still many true believers who are left with nothing left to talk about except the self indoctrinated “science” they hungrily swallowed.

The “science” was the basis for policy, the “science” failed so the policy failed. Now the warmers are left with nothing to debate except more of their failed “science”? On and on and on and on!

Curious isn’t it?

SDQR, what is your explanation for the volume of ice in the Arctic region, where volume has been decreasing over decades? What would be causing the melt, SDQR?
A quote from the Chief Scientist Julia Slingo (April 2013) of the UK Met Office: "The Arctic is intimately linked with the North Atlantic and we know there are links, for example, in the ocean temperatures that run down the west coast of Greenland. They are very warm at the moment. Exceptionally warm!"

http://econnexus.org/nasa-chasing-calving-ice-in-western-greenland/

A few times I have written about thermokarst lakes and thermokarst failure but there has been no comment debunking this phenomena.
There are no arguments about permafrost melt; it is happening. Climate change deniers argue against how temperature is measured; with permafrost melt it is an illustration of temperatures going up.

Hi Ant,

<<SDQR >> twice you spelt my name wrong. Does that count as abuse?

Unlike most believers in AGW I don’t pretend to know all the answers. But I can pick a dud sales pitch when I see one…and both you and citizen Steele have been giving us some mightily dubious pitches. And the fact that you both seem to hail from the extreme left in politics makes me very suspicious of any product you are eager to sell us on –particularly Steele, he tried to sell some read duds in the past --luckily my quality control team pick-up on it before we bought the goods.

SPQR, My apologies for spelling your name wrong. Science is not a matter of politics even though those with a conservative view want to view it in such a way.
When I provide examples it is possible to find the details on the net.
For instance in relation to the Gangotri glacier, that information came from a film clip titled On Thin Ice, another good source of information is a series of film clips titled Thin Ice. Google them if you do not believe me. I chose the Gangotri glacier on the basis that it provides water for millions of people in India.
It amuses me that you suggest a product is being sold to you.

Here is a very short clip about thermokarst failure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CVKsZhrsAec

It occurs due to permafrost melting.

In other posts I have written about extreme rainfall events that have occurred around the globe. There have been two huge downpours which have almost stopped soccer matches the US was to play in Brazil; the first against Ghana, and the second against Germany.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/26/3453570/world-cup-flooding/

Dear Spindoc and SPQR,

You two are pretty fascinating types. Both of you made much of the Russian ship with the climate scientists stuck in the ice near Antarctica touting it as proof the planet wasn't warming. Yet we don't have extensive and substantial records of the sea ice extent in that part of the world.

We do however have well over 100 years of complete daily temperature readings for both of the capital cities I mentioned.

Pointing out a record May in Sydney is not 'cherry picking' but a rigid on the ground statistic that fits with the accepted view that the warming of the planet would appear to be impacting on temperatures in Australia just as they are in most of the land based world today. By itself it is nothing but along with other high results in the 95th percentile range, mostly occurring in the last 20 years, it is in line with climate change predictions.

I am really quite curious about whether either of you at any stage pause and think 'I may well have got this wrong'? Or are you that tied up with the politics of the issue that to do so would cause irreparable damage? Is constantly referring to this as left/right issue a denial mechanism for you both?

What data set would it take for either of you to accept AGW as a fact?

Steele,
<<You … Both of you made much of the Russian ship with the climate scientists stuck in the ice near Antarctica >>
Bruhahahaahahaahahahaaaaaaaaahhahahahhahahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahhaahaha. Stop it Steele –stop it, don’t remind me of that –it was sooooo funny. I am seriously thinking of writing it up and selling the rights to Monty Python.

And I didn't present it as evidence that AGW was false –it was a classic catch yourself out situation.

We had all these "experts” making pronouncements about the ice being slush and receding-- and next minute it is “Help! we are stuck in an ice foe”. Actually it might be a better skit for The Goons I could see Neddie Seagoon clutching the mast with one hand half way up, and the other holding binoculars yelling to Eccles and Minnie below that there are no rescue ships in sight yet (and Little Jim yelling someone’s fallen into the water--or maybe Little Jim could replace it with "we're stuck in the ice")

Ant,
Apologies. I will check your links and come back to you--blame Steele for distracting me

i have BEEN TACKING DOWN AN ants thought's
he SAYS THE SKY IS MELTING..MAYBE FROM THIS PLACE..the[ANT*Arc/trick]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakshin_Gangotri

ANYHOW/IF its in the artic/we know the ice freezes there even in summer
so I THOUGHT MAYBE HE IS YAPPING ABOUT SOME TO=IBET/indian 'GLACIER'/MELTING/AND RECALLED THE HEAT EMITED FROM GRANIT

SO GOOGLED

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=the+Gangotri+glacier%2C+HEATSOURCE+THERMAL&i

SO ANT BRAIN IF YOUR frightend glacier is in India/melting
IT MIGHT HAVE A LOT TO do with thermal release/funny enough we lIVE ON A SOLID MOLTEN IRON CORE/its a wonder anything freezes/LET ALONE MELTS

BUT YOU greenie taxation FREAK/$$
GOT NO IDEA/SPACE IF A DEEP FREEZE/HEAT Can escape into space
then cold air sinks/then the ant brain babbles on ignoring other links
AND SAYS WE GOT FLOODS/GEE WE CLEar fell forrsts/and wONDER WHEN ALL THE WATER rushes down stream/yOU FIX FLOODS BY SLOWIng down the waer flow..NOT TAXING PEOPLE WITh sneaky taxes.

its a waste OF TIME TALking to you.lot
you ignore links/refutting your lies/and prattle on REGARDLESS/WITH THE CCC RAP/its how ol all gore teaches you'ignore thE SCIENCE/GO THE GUILT TAX..Mate you/lot..have id's..and those payed to troll/like you too/will rue the days you told lie after lie after lie

i just saw how THE/COUNCIL FOLLOWING 'guidlines'/is draining every water body/so of course when the rain comes we dont get puddles/YOU LOT DOWN streaM get floods..WELL DUH..

ITS SO YOu got some bulldust/to say look we didnt all lie
yet we know you do/and scream TAX US THE WORLD IS WARNING/COOLING

[WHO THE HELL YOU FO0LS THINK YA FO0LNG?
if you had global warming/you would have 100's OF PROOFS/not one you dont bother explaining[WEAK AS PEE]..LIARs..lie/lay down with dogs ya get fleas.

and the computer trolls just come back with more lies
75 PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS TO A SMALL SURVEY..isnt 99 percent of all scientists

if yoU TWEAK THE NUMBERS[OR PUT THE TEMP Gauges at hot 24.7 airfields/ya tweaking THE NUMBERS[if your measing te out flow/from a powrr generator/yes warming...lol warming[it was colling/cfc's/ozne holes IT WAS METHANE FROM COWS[BUT NOT METHANE FROM FRAkking/or home composting?

GET A JOB
PRESENT REAL FACTS/NOT SPIN..bah

http://www.os.is/gogn/unu-gtp-sc/UNU-GTP-SC-06-31.pdf

one under god, I don't think there are too many Indians living in Antarctica, the Gangotri glacier is in the Himalayas which feeds the Ganges River. The film clip shows how there are several spots marked displaying the glacier receding.
Your reference, one under god, says that 95% of glaciers are retreating in the High Asia area. Your reference is dated 2009; whereas, later references say retreat has increased since.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/516/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NOWonPBS+(NOW+on+PBS)

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/gangotri-glacier-is-retreating-report/article5549905.ece

http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1807/18070690.htm

one under god, the literature I have read, including the reference you gave, discuss tectonic movement, which is different to volcanic action. Your reference is a little older than the ones I have provided. Interesting the reference you gave acknowledges climate change ..."Impact of Climate Change" on page 6.

You raised the matter of methane; live stock releasing methane is not a problem. The real problem is the breakdown of permafrost, glacial ice, and clathrates of methane. Prior to the Industrial Revolution methane was measured at around 700 ppb it is now getting up to 1,900 ppb.

ANT BRAIN/I WILL TALK slow
from your mIDDLE LINK

<<>.The institute..>>

which institute[ie numbers]

<<..has been monitoring the Himalayan glaciers, particularly the Gangotri, since 1999.>>

BUT..then/..<<..The Gangotri..>>,=edited=..<<..glacier is 30.2km long
<<>..has retreated more than 1,500 metres..in the last 70 years.>>

I KNOW ANTS ARNt that clever
but get ya mUM TO DO THE MATH

PLEASE THINK..
THINK..ant BRAIN

30 KILL-0-METERS..LONG
1 and one half kilOMETERS/MELTED..since worls war two

AT THIS RATE..HOW long till its 'GONE'
let me help you with the math

70 YEARS=1500 meters
the damm great big LUMP OF ICE..IS 32,000 METERS..LONG[YA NONG]

BUT WAIT/ANT brain..look..<<>.Post-1971, the rate of retreat of the glacier has declined...>>

so now iTS 1000 METERS/EVERY 70 YEars
that sure makes the ant matH EASY..[UNLESS YOU GOT ANT BRAINS[

WHAT IS 70 YEARS times 32..
somewhere near two thousand 100 YEARS
20 CENTURIES of years ant[figure it out/THINK..HOW MUCH YOU WILLING TO PAY/FOR HOW LONG[YA NONG]..YOU BE LONG GONE/AND YET THE Melt lives on

begone with ya time wasting cccrap..ant
you make uP LIES/YOU SPREAD LIES/BY YA Own links[quoted/NOT MISS REPRESENTED/BY TINY LITTLE mites/,,mate..go PEDDLE YA LIES ELSEWHERE

IF ITS GLOBAL
all WILL BE MELTING/TILL YOU GOt proof lol.pull ya aint brain in

but wait/more ant braiN MATH..<<>>“2000 onwards, the average rate of retreat of the glacier per year has been about 12 to 13 metres,>>”12times70=840/METERS?..<<.. =said Dr. Kireet Kumar of the G.B. Pant Institute.>>

SO MY POOR RETARD MATH SAYS SINCE Your fools been watching it/the melting has halved[SINCE 2000]..NOW ANT BRAIN GO SCREW YA SELF/IM SICK OF YA WASTING MY TIME/GET LOst sun..ya lies are done...ya can only take the tax from your own buM.[NOTING ANTS BUMS ARE OFTEN BIGGER THAN THEIR TINY HEads.

SEE YA ANT
DROP DED.

one under god, thanks for your cheery message "SEE YA ANT DROP DED." In relation to the Gangotri glacier, it had hardly been receding; but since 2009 it has been receding at a greater rate. You are right that receding will not impact for some time; but people certainly are expressing concern about it at present; local people.

This is some of the blurb that goes with the film On Thin Ice "Seventy-five percent of the world's fresh water is stored in glaciers, but scientists predict climate change will cause some of the world's largest glaciers to completely melt by 2030. What effect will this have on our daily lives, especially our water and food supply? With global warming falling low on a national list of American concerns, it's time to take a deeper look at what could be a global calamity in the making.

This week, David Brancaccio and environmentalist Conrad Anker—one of the world's leading high altitude climbers—trek to the Gangotri Glacier in the Himalayan Mountains, the source of the Ganges River, to witness the great melt and its dire consequences first-hand. The two also visit Montana's Glacier National Park to see the striking effects of global warming closer to home and learn how melting glaciers across the world can have a direct impact on food prices in the U.S."

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/516/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NOWonPBS+(NOW+on+PBS

OUG
Do us all a favour and stop using capitals all the time. It is thought as the same as shouting on the internet, also it is very hard to read.

By the way if cold sinks why do is it that we find snow on the top of the mountains and not at the bottom ?

dear warminist ant/its futile/telling us..2030
when i just did the math/proving [yoUR WORST CASE/EGSAMPLED]..WONT FINNISH..ITS MELTING TILL 4023..thats 2000 plus yeads away/ant brains

thus al your other questions only reveal imbisility or insanity or paid tO BE LOYAL[TOOK THE BRIBE]..swallowed the lies/now cant admit you were fooled TOO

LOOK BACK/JUST A DECADE/we were all posting the rubbish your spounting
but one by one/we looked at the lies the data/the name CALLing/the lack of proof/just CLEVER maTH construct and perversion.

but its clEAR you lot too ignorant to do the simple math
cant refute the bleeding obvious..2000 years..isnt a thing you nor i/nor any of us can fix[plus its not even broken]..why ya persist on wasting out time

you cant refute what i say
so you refute how im saying it..im sat=ying grow up

and as for the smow/on top of mountains/think
have you ever sat near a fire too close/and got sunburn
well if your next to a huge iceblock..you gona get snow/the closer to/the outerspace deep freeze ya go

top of the mountain..is closer
to the ice-cold face of INFINITE OUTERSPACE
SO YEP ITS GOING TO GET SNOW/THE REASON THE EARTH DONT FREZE IS WE GOT CONVECTION CARRYING THE HEAT UP /COLD DOWN..IN HUGE COLLEM'S/TORNADO CUMMIN.YOU LOT ARE JUST LIKE THE DOG TOTO/CAUFGHT UP IN YA OWN HOT AIR COLUM..have a nice life

the fact your not presenting fact is cause you got no fact/that justifies the trippling of the cost of energy/the deaths will be on your concious/when the poor freeze to death/cause they cant afford to turn on a heater/or a fan

you fools in your ignorance need wake up urgently
yet again/here..get educated..you got somerhing to sat/say where on which link you refute/it shouldnt be too hard/according to you
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=global_warming&id=main.html

but how clever..10,000 to bet
on getTing ten billions annual return..LITTLE KNOWING A fraud studdy/costs 10 times that..if you got numbers/make sure they measure the affectonly/..not the cause[ie methane is 100 times as bad as c02/IN HEAT AFFECT;reportedly..plus industry with its cfc's/and THOUSANDS OF OTHER REAL POLLUTANTS/AND YOUR FO-CUSSED ON/WHAT?

lies/lies/spin/guilt/lies/do as i say/not as i do
AGAIN/SCREW THE LOT OF YA...take ya guilt and shove it where the sun dont shine[ya selling a fable/LIVING A DELUSION

2030..IS ONLY 15 YEARS AWAY
REST EASY TILL THEN/IF ITS ALL GOING TO BE MELTED/IT SHOULD allready be half gone[yet not 1/100th/AT BEST CAN BE 'PROVED'/BUT EVEN THAT SHOWS ITS SLOWING.[HALVED SINCE WW2/AT THIS RATE ACCRETION SHALL RESUME/BY 2030\..OH THATS WHY THE PUTCHE IS ON.

Again/be gone
no facts here..runalong.

NUHINGNESS..BAG

Dear Shadow Minister,

The annual average maximum temperature reading for Sydney has only slipped below the average figure of 21.7 degrees Celsius once in the last 40 years. To me my friend that is a changing climate.

What is it to you? A fluke?

Steele, have you forgotten already that you were unable to reference any science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate?

You have taken up blatant fraud backing again. You are baselessly asserting that global warming is caused by human emissions. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting this disgraceful fraud.

Ant,

Re Greenland/thermokarst lakes.

I did a bit of googling --and things don’t seem as simple as your link would have us believe. Your link paints a picture of unprecedented runaway meltdown. But there is evidence of a) refreezing and/or b) a long-established cyclical pattern at play:

<<...the researchers ...were able to construct a continuous history going back 120 years. By studying the debris and silt deposited in the fjord, estimations can be made about the rate of iceberg calving, and hence ice loss from the flowing ice of the glacier...the researchers were able to create a history of ice loss for Helheim [Glacier]...Two pronounced calving maxima are observed: one during the past 10 years, the other in the late 1930s/early 1940s. The long-term calving increase is probably due to a shift from the Little Ice Age conditions, which were characterized by low air temperatures and strong polar-water influence..."Our analysis indicates that the recent increase in calving activity observed at Helheim Glacier is not unique but that a similarly large event occurred in the late 1930s/early 1940s. These two episodes occurred at times when the temperature of the Atlantic-water source was high (positive/warm Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation phase) and the polar-water export was at a record low (even if fluctuating)."..."“Our study provides evidence that Helheim Glacier responds to changes in [natural] atmosphere–ocean variability on timescales as short as a few years.”" [Camilla S. Andresen, Fiammetta Straneo, Mads Hvid Ribergaard, Anders A. Bjørk, Thorbjørn J. Andersen, Antoon Kuijpers, Niels Nørgaard-Pedersen, Kurt H. Kjær, Frands Schjøth, Kaarina Weckström, Andreas P. Ahlstrøm 2012: Nature Geoscience]>>

And, on the other side of the world -- there is evidence of an increase in ice coverage & cooling:

<<NASA's satellites have now been measuring global temperatures for a full 35 years (420 months through November 2013), including the Antarctic…As can be seen, there has been a cooling trend - granted, a very tiny -0.04°C/century, but it remains far removed from the IPCC's unicorn science of "amplified" and dangerous polar warming.And not only has it not warmed, the Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record amount...>>
http://www.c3headlines.com/arcticgreenlandantarcticglacierssea-ice/

steeleredux/quote..<<..The annual average maximum temperature reading for Sydney has only slipped below the average figure of 21.7 degrees Celsius once in the last 40 years.>>

YES STELLY/EVER HEARD OF HEAT ISLAND AFFECT?

[SEE HOW MUCH..snydnee/has groan..how we all HAVE GROWN/outwards
SEe HOW THE EXTRA FLIGHTS..in..CAUSE LOCAL WARMING/just from the extra tourists/let alone plain plan people

mate its a numbers game..[as more people squash into sydney basin they produce more heat..in sydney/thus heat island defect

not globaly.warming/cause the sky is frozen/desrts
[lol the insanity..of warming/when the pROOF SAYS WE ARE COOLING[thus need more C02 NOT LESS/LOSL

MORE polution is what we need/and you endtime lunaticks
still trying to cool it further down/based on the money sceme of an all gore clown

<<..40 YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT/well dud..OF COURSE SYDNEY/is a bit hot/as it GETS WARMER/TALLER BUILDINGS/aircond/closed windows..SO MUCH BUILDINg/EXTRA TRAFFEXTRA POULATION MOVING/

ever encroaching/ENCROACHING GOING GOING.
see the seeds your need is sowing
poor you tax me screwu2

<<To me my friend..that is a changing climate.>>

TO ME THATS SUBRURBAN HEAT ISLAND AFFECT
AND GOING 24.7..and the airconditioning warmist tend/as the big users use ever more/cause our solar credits deliverd our money to their door/MY MONEY SITTING ON YOUR ROOF

where your proof
feel my reproof/thats nothing to what the real liars going to get[they aint seen nuthin..yet[but large income streams/and money lost/for us to spend on lifes other leasures/then pay the rent

SILLY THING TO ASK SHADOW MEMBER..<<..What is it to you? A fluke?>>
GO GET HIM SHADOW

SPQR

According to BOM
http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/?ref=marketing
Under the heading
Global atmosphere and cryosphere

“Ice-mass loss from Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has accelerated. The mean estimated rate of ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet has increased nearly five-fold from an estimated mean of 30 gigatonnes per year (Gt/yr) for the period from 1992 to 2001, to 147 Gt/yr for the period 2002 to 2011. The rate of ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet has increased from 34 to 215 Gt/yr over the same period.”

I have no doubt it has been pointed out before but the fact that seasonal sea ice area has increased slightly around Antarctica is entirely consistent with an influx of fresh water which freezes at a higher temperature than salt water, and does not for one moment negate the fact that land ice is being lost at an accelerating rate.

What is it with all the ice melt at Antartica, Antartica is actually getting bigger, because of the ice melt and refreezing as sea ice.

That is giving cool breezes more surface area to cool off even more before being sent to AU as a blizzard.

Climate change Crap is for real. How else is all this ice melting, the sea temp is getting hotter.

Wild weather all around the world crap.

Just like our fearless leader crap it takes Obama to shake his timbers.

Wake up to yourself crap it's all around you.

Warmair,

<<I have no doubt it has been pointed out before but the fact that seasonal sea ice area has increased slightly around Antarctica is entirely consistent with an influx of fresh water which freezes at a higher temperature>>

Just a silly question--if this is true (and I'm not jumping either way)

Would NOT it also lead to similar *increases* around Greenland --and why are we not seeing it mirrored there?

oh dear warmer..quote..<<..I have no doubt it has been pointed out before..>>

Y=IGNOANCE CAN SAY THINGS IN IGNORANCE
thinking the ignorance/being the bliss[THEIR POSSABLY CORRECT/but

<<>.but the fact that seasonal sea ice area has increased slightly around Antarctica is entirely consistent with an influx of fresh water which freezes at a higher temperature than salt water..>>

dear airhead/mate..please get this into your head
first/the bit you love/but that stops your mind from reading further[so/please skip this first bit/cause it sends your brain to sleep/[I INCLUDE IT ONLY TO SHOW I HAVNT CHEATED NOR EDITED/is is as it is

ready..?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_ice_pack

<<>.The Antarctic ice cover is highly seasonal,..with..
*very little ice..>>

ie very little 'new'[ice/which is what sea ice means;new

very little new ice over summer
some days a bit even melts/refrezes at night/but back to the quote

very little sea ice..<<.in the austral summer,..expanding to an area roughly equal..to that of Antarctica..in winter...Consequently, most Antarctic sea ice..is first year ice,..up to 1 meter (3.28 ft) thick>>

SO THATS THE BIT..<<..The Arctic Ocean is very different,..being a polar sea..*surrounded by /WARNING-land rather than a polar continent surrounded by sea,..and..THUS..its ice shows less seasonal variation.>>

[the caps/mine]
but please read on
recall/now 'sea ice=new ice]..

<<>...Currently 28% of Arctic basin sea ice..is multi-year ice,[*] thicker than seasonal:[*]..up to 3–4 meters (9.8–13.1 ft) thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters (65.6 ft) thick.The area of sea ice around the poles in winter is about 15,600,000 km2 (6,000,000 sq mi) either for the Antarctic or Arctic.>>

HERE READ ON

<<..However, whereas the northern cap is shrinking at a rate of about 3% per decade, the southern cap is expanding at a rate of 0.8% per decade...>>

OMG
WARM AIR HEAD AND LITTLE ELSE
[READ COMPUTER program-TROLL..did you get that bit

ok thats all
next denier..[no johan thats us/..next warmist/coolist[what we call them changing fools?..revenuers/trolls chicken little/the sky is falling wannabe wolves creeping down into dark chimminies/tracking down the last warmist filthy carbon air breather

SPQR, the Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland has been reported by NASA as retreating at a record speed. The glacier is 22 kilometers wide and stands 800+ meters high.
There is even acknowledgement in a Greenland tourist brochure about the amount of receding of Jakobshavn glacier. In relation to the

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/jakobshavn.html

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/environment/greenland-s-jakobshavn-glacier-retreating-at-record-speeds/article/369185

I had a look at the reference you provided, it being an abstract; and discussed variability. It also discusses how water is undermining the glacier where it meets the sea, its a pity your reference is behind a paywall.
Here is a reference directed towards tourists wishing to visit Greenland:

http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/natur-klima/klimaaendringer.aspx
Derived from: http://www.greenland.com/en/ which says at top left "The Official Tourism Site of Greenland"
Over the last few years it has been noticed that the amount of melt water on top of the Greenland ice sheet has been increasing in extent until now it covers 100% of the ice sheet in a film for a short period.

SPQR, you may or may not have watched the clip I provided in relation to thermocast failure, my references relate to Alaska.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CVKsZhrsAec

The Richardson Highway in Alaska was blocked through a landslide, created through permafrost melting; that is, thermokarst failure.

http://epic.awi.de/31461/1/Morgenstern2012Dissertation.pdf

In neighbouring Siberia they also have thermokarst lakes.

Probably something to do with ocean currents. Surface area of ice will effect temps; and play a role in weather patterns.

The ice melt is increasing, America is copping the fallout from Greenland, but don,t tell ARJAY he has his own ideas of what is causing Americas weather.

By the time all the ice has melted, the expected sea level rise is expected to be six meters.

Just a reminder of the dishonesty of participants in the AGW fraud, Steele:
“Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

You are now part of a blatant fraud, Steele. An 80 year cooling trend in the US has been turned into a warming trend, by alteration of data.
A typical example of the fabrication of global warming.

SPQR
"Would NOT it also lead to similar *increases* around Greenland --and why are we not seeing it mirrored there?"

The simple answer to your question is sea currents alter the situation; warmer sea currents melt the ice.

http://mex1.whoi.edu:8080/http2/WHOI_CMS/Woods_Hole_Oceanographic_Institution/70536_glaciersPacewebopt.mp4

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/mediarelations/ArcticSubpolarCurrents550_103268.jpg

Leo, you might enjoy this experiment with CO2.

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/1906/how-co2-traps-sun39s-warmth CO2

People who live in an area generally have some feeling for whats going on, a short clip:
http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/2687/life-in-the-arctic-sami-view

I was talking with a mate yesterday, he stated if there was a 1 in 3 chance of a plane coming to grief we would not put our children onboard.
Even if the chance was 1 in a 100 we would not place our children on board. He stated that the actual chance of a plane accident is around 1 in 10,000,000.
He commented that we have a 1 in 3 chance of climate change doing huge damage. I didn't ask him how he came to the figure of 1 in 3. We insure our houses where the chance of it being burnt down is far less than 1 in 100. Yet, we take great chances with climate change.

Dear Tinkerbell,

I love it when guys like you post stuff from Steven Goddard. You did realise of course there is no real person called Steven Goddard running an anti-AGW blog. It is actually someone else entirely.

The last time this rather shadowy figure had a real crack at NASA figures was in 2008 when The Register, again in the UK, published an article claiming the Arctic ice melt was not as severe as that proclaimed by NASA.

“data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007.”

“The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn't even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss.”

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

Although this was picked up by other news agencies it was of course complete bunkum. If you go to the above link you will find this correction;

“Walt Meier, research scientist at the NSIDC, has contacted us disputing the validity of Steven Goddard's methodology, and of his use of University of Illinois data to question the NSIDC's charts. We accept that these two data sets are not directly comparable, and that the University of Illinois data does not provide support for Goddard's charge that the NSIDC data is incorrect.”

After a week of getting roasted Steve Goddard aka Tony Heller finally conceded;

"it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated."

Which honest broker do you have for us next?

Steele, Steven Goddard was misled by incorrect maps of UI, in relation to ice cover. He acknowledged this when it was drawn to his attention.
What does that have to do with manipulation of data by NOAA,to show non existent warming. You are a master of irrelevance.
You should at least acknowledge that your fraud-backing is not supported by any science demonstrating any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
You would then demonstrate a standard of personal honesty approaching the Steven Goddard standard.

Dear Leo,

You have blindly rejected all the science laid in front of you, which is your right, but you have been asked on innumerable occasions what data set would it take to demonstrate to you any measurable effect of human emissions on climate and you have been unable to do so.

I don't think you know yourself.

Your limited understanding of the issue has been there for all to see but you must have some understanding of what makes you tick. Why do you think you have allowed your political stance to completely and utterly befuddle you to such a degree that you are so determinately defensive and recalcitrant about this topic?

My instinct is that you are afflicted by fear. One of the universal human mechanisms of coping with fear is to deny the problem exists. It is indeed a hugely intimidating threat to ours and other species on this planet. You have every right to feel powerless and overwhelmed. The foxhole into which you have bunkered yourself is feeling safe and secure. You have chosen not to hear the approaching rattle of tank tread instead you rock back and forth calling those warning you of the impending danger 'fraudsters'.

Well it is indeed an uncertain future made immeasurably more so by the inaction of various governments around the world. You have not made peace with this threat despite feeling that by electing a man who thinks climate change is crap it would go away. It is still out there and getting bigger rather than smaller by the day.

It is now your choice, are you going to remain cowering and be remembered by your grandchildren as such or are you going to join us at the parapet and do what we can to change this government's path?

Steele, I take your pointless drivel as another evasion of facing the fact that there is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
Here us what a top scientist says” Given that carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas (albeit a mild and diminishingly
effective one at currently increasing levels of atmospheric concentration), and that some
human-caused emissions accrue in the atmosphere, the question of dangerous warming was a good one to raise back in the late 1980s. Since then, with the formation of the IPCC, and a parallel huge expansion of research and consultancy money into
climate studies, energy studies and climate policy, an intensive effort has been made to
identify and measure the human signature in the global temperature record at a cost that probably exceeds $100 billion. And, as Kevin Rudd might put it, “You know what? No such signature has been able to be isolated and measured.”
That, of course, doesn’t mean that humans have no effect on global temperature, because we know that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas, and we can also measure the local temperature effects of human activity, which are both warming (from the urban heat island
effect) and cooling (due to other land-use change, including irrigation). Sum these effects all over the world and obviously there must be a global signal; that we can’t identify and measure it indicates that the signal is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural climate variation.
Twenty-five years on, therefore, we have answered the question, “Are human carbon dioxide emissions causing dangerous global warming”, and the answer is “No”; but strangely that answer causes environmental activists and their supporters, including apparently many scientists, to develop the disease known as deaf ear."
http://www.familyfirst.org.au/files/Bob-Carter-A-Dozen-Global-Warming-Slogans.pdf
cont

cont.
So the required science will identify and measure the human effect on climate. The peer reviewed study of Mclean et al 2009 identified the natural cause of global warming, leaving little room for the alleged effect of human emissions, but you are the fraud backer, so you find the science which supports the fraud, and vindicate your otherwise untenable situation.
You assert that I have “rejected all the science laid in front of you”. What science is that, Steele? You really do talk nonsense. Your next idiocy is “you are afflicted by fear”. What do I fear. I know it is fraudulent nonsense. If you believe it, then the fear is yours, and in your delusional state you project it on to me, along with “completely and utterly befuddle you to such a degree that you are so determinately defensive and recalcitrant about this topic?”. A further self description is” I don't think you know yourself”.

You have now made such a fool of yourself again, that you have no doubt induced a craving for another delusion of victory. You are a complicated mess, Steele, and I am not available for your pathetic self projection.

Here’s a little something for those who might think that the scientific orthodoxy is beyond reproach:

“Gravitational lensing isn’t about the gravitational field bending space-time, …it’s about the gravitational field affecting plasma density along the gradient; the varying plasma density in turn affects the path light takes. The scientists who support [a different proposition] are either unaware of this phenomenon or they do not want you to know about this, this is bad news for them””

The last part bears repeating:
“ The scientists who support [a different proposition] are either unaware of this phenomenon or they do not want you to know about this , this is bad news for them”

Who wrote that ?
One of those dastardly climate deniers –NO!
Dr Edward Dowdye Jr (“a physicist and laser optics engineer ex- NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre …and a member of The American Physics Society).

And, you will find a similar –but separate – indictment in "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin (a theoretical physicist).

And if that wasn’t sufficent reason to carefully audit anything that cites a higher authority as final proof --look at AGW's most vocal proponents –Steelerdux!

To mangle Woody Allen's famous quip : “I'd never join a [cause] that would allow a person like [Steeleredux] to become [its lead apostle].”

SPQR, I had a look at information in relation to Dr Edward Dowdye Jr, and it does appear as though he has given the theory of Relativity a nudge.

On a regular basis I view a site that reviews whats occurring in the Arctic Circle. Somebody on the site commented there must have been a glitch in the instrumentation as a significant amount of ice had disappeared in Hudson Bay. Professor Lesack has mentioned ice disappearing in Hudson Bay in a paper released earlier this year.

A comment from the site I visit:
"Temperatures around Hudson Bay are extreem also. The 33.4 C at Fort Severn might seem to be a glitch in the sensor if it wasn't for the 33.1 recorded at Peawanuck and the 32.6 from Moosonee At James Bay. For our American friends the above temperatures are all in excess of 90 F, not what is expected from polar bear country.

At Churchill:
2014 - 6/28 30.7 C
2013 - 6/23 27.9 C
2012 - 6/25 25.0 C "

These would be surface temperatures and it is interesting as on the same site there is debate about the impact of temperature between surface temperature and temperature measured by satellite taken well above earth. There does not seem to be any consensus on the relationship between surface and satellite temperatures; however, there is much discussion about warm ocean currents, the state of the atmosphere. and incoming highs and lows. We will know in September just how much ice is lost in the Arctic Circle; however, one thing is very clear, the extent and volume will not be increasing significantly.

In relation to Antarctica, sea ice does seem to be increasing; but,there are some huge glaciers that are shedding huge volumes of ice, also. So, it does not automatically indicate that what is happening at the Polar extremes is different.

Tut tut Ant you should know better. A person touting a dismantling of the theory of relativity? Anybody who these characters put up as authorities are usually bonkers, charlatans or in the employ of the fossil fuel industry. But hell, they are the reason I keep coming back here.

Dear SPQR,

Once again you have made my day. The bloke is a religious nutter of the first order. Here is Dr Edward Dowdye Jr's web site http://scienceinthebible.net/

“the presence of advance wisdom and science in the bible - a testimony of a Ph.D. Physicist”

His objective;

“Because of the vast intimidations, the complexities of the modern day sciences and the aggressive onslaught of the non-believers against believers, it is sometime necessary to tool up with the mental blocks, using our own God given talents and minds in defense of the faith. The objective is to help the teaching of those who are challenged by the vast waves of non-sense, sloppy sciences and the attacks against people of faith.”

“The research compiled in this website is based solely on sound fundamentals and solid foundations of the Modern Sciences using Modern Scientific Methods with references to the 66 Books of the Holy Bible.”

His site is a wonder to read.

In it you will find many other scientific facts. For instance SPQR did you know “100 years before the flood at Noah's 500th Birthday the human population on Earth was as great or even greater than today?”

Okay we have had Goddard from Leo now Dowdye from you, can someone make it a trifecta? But please do it tomorrow, I've had my laugh for the day.

Dear Steele,

. The bloke is a religious nutter of the first order.
. The bloke is a religious nutter of the first order
. The bloke is a religious nutter of the first order

He couldn’t possibly have anything of interest or worth to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies

SPQR,

I was going to but in earlier after SteeleRedux exposed your folly...but I kinda felt sorry for you.

Now you compound it!

Did you see that guy's website?

And you reckon he's likely to overturn Einstein's theory which has been proved mathematically over and over again?

http://scienceinthebible.net/

Gee Willikers!

Certainly worthy of your favourite ROFLMAO.

SteeleRedux,if you haven't seen this site it is very interesting in relation to temperature, it is not the site I had mentioned in my previous note.
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/high-temperatures-in-the-arctic.html#comment-form

If you type Lance Lesack in the top left hand corner of the arctic-news site you can access information about his study of the McKenzie river which showed how temperatures were increasing from 1958 onwards

SteeleRedux, I had a further search in relation to Dr Edward Dowdye Jr's, I had read that he had peer reviewed articles published in Journals, "as well as a number of other important papers published in some renown refereed journals."
http://www.extinctionshift.com/
As far as his religion is concerned; I wasn't too concerned, as the matter he was commenting on wasn't climate change; his area of expertise is probably not impacted by religion. Fundamental Religious views do impact on views on climate change; John Howard has talked about having "faith" that anthropogenic climate change does not exist. The problem with that view is that "faith" is not held up by appropriate data.

The huge irony here -- which seems to have escaped some-- is that REAL science is about whether specific theories answer the facts …not whether their proposers other views or lifestyle is orthodox.

If you applied Steele’s and Poriot's politically tainted metric to everyone it would disqualify Newton and many of other great thinkers.
{and, in case Poriot and Steele dont know who Newton was -- as seems likely --here's a link for them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies)

As champions of science, Poriot would make an unbeatable Abigail Williams and Steele an unsurpassable Thomas Putnam …they would be naaaaaaaaaaaaaaturals!

LUVPAR*ROT/PLOT..<<..Did you..see that guy's website?>>

yes/DID YOU?

<<..The research*..published..in\the ScienceInTheBible.net website supports..the doctrines..of the..66 Books..>>[EXCLUDING/THE\PROPHECY?]

WOW../ATHEIST\DYNOMITE*?
[WHAT/WILL..agnostrick/ATHEISTS/..CONcure/REFUTE?

THE\FRUIT/of..the Holy-Bible.

<<>.IMPORTANT*NOTE:

*..This website..does/not..promote
or..support alternatives..to\the Bible.>>

OR/OTHER\SCARED-TEXTS?
NO..just..the bible..

<<..*..This website..does*not..promote..or..make/any use
of..Scientology..nor..theories/of Intelligent Design..*>>

INTELIGENT*DESIGN=GOD?

OR DNA.,.EVOLVING=GOD..[YOU KNOW..INTELLI-GENT/LOGICAL/FALSIFIABLE/..YET THIS..\/..'BIBLE BASHER/\..REFUTES GOD DUN IT..huh?

do/you..dispute god too/
pure-[or/not]?

<nor theories/intel-design..<<which..is essentially..a movement.
..*..This website..does_not..promote,..support..or make any\use of Darwin..>>

OK/DENIED..GOD../DENIED\..DARWIN..
denies/<<..theories*..of evolution..>>..please/note-proviso..<<..which donot..rest..*on..*firm/scientific principles.>>

DARWIN/HIMSELF..DENIED EVOLUTION..[OF GENUS]
go read\his work/evolution/..*of species*..[within-genus/FAMILIES..ETC].

DARWIN/proved/that doves..breed doves/dogs/breed\dogs..catus=cats..canus=canus..finches breed finches
bird/do-it\bees,,do-it..even/flowrs/trees..do-it*

via..survival/of\..the fittest\we get/natural variations[within the genus-mean]..never new genus*

<<..*..This website/does not\promote..or support..in any way/any of the*'crafts'/..arts../..such as astrology..which\has absolutely nothing..at all/to do with\science.>>

so far/..they\he/..lok more-like..one of yourn
than/one\of/mine..[WHAT SPECIFICLY..YOU REFUTING..MY DEAR?]

<<..The Bible..clearly instructs\us..to stay..clearly away from "divining<i>rods"..[male]..[Xy]..or.."dowsing>u<stick..the female..[XX]s"...as such things..are not..Godly practices.>>>..

WHY NEED..THEY\he/..SAY THAT?
TO..CUT OUT..diminish\the majic/..predictive/
from/the\pre planed fix/..*new!eyes*...and you..\judged his work/..

now reveal/his\bad fruits?

why/this web-site/CREATED\WAS..to give aid/comfort

WHY?

<<..Because of the vast..intimidations,..the complexities of the modern day/MAGAZINE/sciences..and the aggressive/onslaught\of the non-believers against believers[WITH/A\GOD-LESS/CREATION-FABLE..],..

>>||<<>.it is sometime necessary..to tool up..with the mental blocks,..using..our own God given talents..and minds/in defense of the/RIGHT\2/faith...IN ANY ABSURDITY/SANTA/CHOCOLATE/EGGS/SATAN.

<<..The objective..is to help*..the teaching/of those who are challenged*..by the vast waves..of non-sense,..*sloppy sciences and the attacks..against people/of\LITTLE-faith.

PURE-ROTEquote..<<..And you?..reckon.he's likely to overturn Einstein's theory..which has been/proved mathematically over and over again?>>

SORRY MATE/I MISSED..THAT/WHERE DID..HE SAY/THAT?
indeed/where/proved?..what key/thing..wouldnt exist/but for
E=energy=mass/[what/mass/weight..in tone/pounds ounces/suns?

what/means..mass..times:../times\..the speed of light/times the speed of light..THAT GIVES/US..WHAT?..A REALLY/BIG/NUMBER]BIG/DONT..mean/its right!

ANYHOW SO YOUR..REFUTING..*SOMETHING..HE..did/or\DIDNT SAY
ANY REFUTING..HIS OTHER-STUFF..YOU DIDNT READ,,2?

LIKE POINT-OUT..his/ERROR?

or..is/it easier..to
just overstate/..ie/BE\blinded-hate?

http://scienceinthebible.net/

Gee Willikers/mate..!

Certainly worthy..of your favourite
*R.igging..[reneging?]..*Of..*Fanciful *Lavishments
*Marking..[MASKING]..*Angry..O*position.

via..fanciful\obfuscation ;.by avoidance/of BIAS/weighing presented proofs/to those\of little[or no;..FAITH].?

YOUR REFUTING/YOUR IDEA..OF WHAT HE..*MAY BE*..SAYING
OR IMPLYING/BECAUSE\..THE INNER VOICE..YOUR HEARING IS deaf..[AVOIDANCE..LOL..YOU?

REFUTE FACTS/.please/you know/show\the track/..or/the lack of fact enact..because by its absence..it lacks...

its/a punt..refuting..no specific point]
EXPLAIN..E=MC2..?..what..good such/rubbish..to u..?
it..[e-mc2]..makes/the trains;run..on time?[or/its easy/to..recall;im a scientist=e=mc2..

i now rule/the wurd...world/CAUSE
I KNOW..ABACADRABRA../AND\..E=mc2..the/world/my\oysters..sim/sella/bling.

[ho*cuss/po-cuss/fo-cuss.]

OUG,

"SORRY MATE/I MISSED..THAT/WHERE DID..HE SAY/THAT?"

How about here...

"“Gravitational lensing isn’t about the gravitational field bending space-time, …it’s about the gravitational field affecting plasma density along the gradient; the varying plasma density in turn affects the path light takes. The scientists who support [a different proposition] are either unaware of this phenomenon or they do not want you to know about this, this is bad news for them”"

That's why we have peer review...so that people who propose things like:

""....The scientists who support [a different proposition] are either unaware of this phenomenon or they do not want you to know about this, this is bad news for them”"

...are further examined, weeded out or confirmed in their ideas.

This is a scientist who attempts to meld modern scientific practice with the 66 books of the Bible.

......

SPQR,

Regarding Newton, no-one is denigrating his religious beliefs or suggesting that because he held them, he couldn't think scientifically.

But we are talking of a different time here - a different Zeitgeist.

Bertrand Russel said:

"The immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion, but they conceal the fact in public, because they are afraid of losing their incomes."

I'm not saying that applies to a man like Newton. I am saying that as science and the centuries have progressed, it's now much harder to find a scientist who would reference the 66 books of the Holy Bible to enhance scientific argument.

Scientists deal in empirical evidence - and citing things like a 6.000-odd year-old Earth, a 500 year-old Noah, virgin births and bodily ascension to Heaven in the sky, etc are incompatible with scientific method and practice.

Dear SPQR,

Just to follow on from Poirot's post.

From the site you posted;

“After purchasing and studying Newton's alchemical works in 1942, economist John Maynard Keynes, for example, opined that "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians". In the Early Modern Period of Newton's lifetime, the educated embraced a world view different from that of later centuries. Distinctions between science, superstition, and pseudoscience were still being formulated, and a devoutly Christian Biblical perspective permeated Western culture.”

Mate, Newton was doing his thing in a vastly different time, over 300 bloody years ago. Your bloke is operating in a period where 'distinctions between science, superstition, and pseudoscience have been pretty well thoroughly formulated'. The chap is loopy. You were foolish to have posted him in the first place but you are compounding that foolishness by doubling down. Rather some lame-arsed response you need to cut him loose now, take your medicine like a man and move on.

Dear ant,

I have no doubt that the Arctic sea ice will reach near record lows this season. Of course there are many concerns with the implications of this including permafrost melting. Thankfully the record Antarctic Ice extant will be balancing the albedo factor at least. In one way it is fascinating seeing real time human induced geological changes occurring before our eyes but the fears I have for my children and their futures is very sobering.

Poirot,

<<But we are talking of a different time here - a different But we are talking of a different time here - a different Zeitgeist.>

And,and --please give my due --I have always allowed for the fact that and you and Steele come from a different era ...a zeitgeist much akin to that portrayed in The Crucible

And as for Dr Edward Dowdye Jr you need to examine his theories on their merits --certainly NASA saw enough value or nous in him to employ him --and we know how keen you true believer types are (or have been in the past) to spruik any association with NASA!

P/QUOTE..<<."“Gravitational lensing isn’t about..>>

ABOUT ENERGY..get it darling..E=energy*
[energy=u=me=gravity/wether or not its ensing

tell me dear heart/what means gravitational lensing?
its bull/like alians/brining life[who 'bruing their lifving?

G/L..isnt about,,<<.. the gravitational field
bending space-time,>>

oh/so monsigneur purrot/your saying space/time=mass
i think the m[isnt needed]..but for the fact it turns as into mass

yes/mass\has gravtational/affect..<<>.…it’s about the gravitational field affecting plasma density along the gradient;>>

along which gradient/oh disobediant one?

<<>.the varying plasma density>>..of the gloabaly lensed/g-field\
lol/bending\space-times/ass..lol about gravy/field/affecting plasma/density..along the gradient..lol..<<>.in turn affects the path light takes.

and show how e-mc2..did that
changed that
or how that prat rot explains anything?

<<.The scientists who support [a different proposition] are either unaware of this phenomenon or they do not want you to know about this, this is bad news for them”">>

yes/they either drank that previous coolaid/or the god of these realm[satan]..has blindED THEIR HEARing/seeing

leave the pigs enjoy their muck
a dog dont notice the dirt/smells only the meat
chickens care little they eat anything incuding other chickens=meat

let those of satan/know their master
if you cant explain/it..refrain from trying to explaiN IT
darling..nonone knows what it means/but when we do..darwins[sorry eibstein/is assured to be standing there too..

he woRKED/THE PAENT CIRCUT/didnt ned reverse engeneer']
do TRY TO WATCH HIS 4 COMMEDY MOVIES;..he was an amasing dude.

but/emergy/begubg equal to mass..[ie density]
dont relate to volitility/nor speed..of light
energy=mass/plus\means/way/rate of releasse
then the energy consrvation law/to make sure you dont loose/NATURAL END FRUIT RELEASE..product..[energy capital return.darling..please..explain..how mass squeezed into a emclosed space/heats/emits energy..why[e=mc2/not even close.

<<That's why we have peer review.?>>

ohh dea must please the guru
dont make me sick/the same teqnique
as tha other 'priestly clique/we know how crook that is dont we monsigneur purro

or are you even ahh mister...?
har/ha..got ya/love ya like my right hand[ok maybe left]

Dear SPQR,

So when shown to have been so obviously in error your default position, which sadly reflects that of many of the conservative posters on this forum, is to attack those who point out your transgression and defend to the hilt the indefensible.

Dowdye was not a NASA physicist but rather an electrical engineer. From his own website;

“Dr. Dowdye is an electrical engineer (retired) at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.”
http://www.extinctionshift.com/author.htm

Later he was a graduate student at Howard University under Professor Misra and got his doctorate in 2000;
“(Graduate Student: Physics). Ph.D. Dissertation: "FT-IR Spectroscopic Assessment of Gas-Phase Absorption of Atmospheric Molecular Species at Low Concentrations and Their Associated Adsorption Effects on Various Material Surfaces" (Graduated Spring 2000).”
http://www.physics1.howard.edu/~pmisra/spectroscopy/personnel.htm

More from his site;

“Dr. Dowdye is an independent researcher and is Founder of Pure Classical Physics Research where he focuses in depth on the Truth and the Profound Fundamentals and Pure Laws of Nature, all first set in motion by the Devine Creator, the Almighty Lord God.”

Pure Classical Physics Research? Try finding that baby on the web.

Global warming?

“2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

"A NASA study confirms the Earth constantly receives more energy from the sun than it reflects back into space. A massive snow storm would require a corresponding quantity of solar energy for the vaporization of its water. The more massive the snow is, the greater the quantity of solar energy required for the vaporization of its water. Solar Energy in the form of Radiant Heat vaporizes the Waters of the Earth from which the Snow is produced by God's Nature”

Come on mate put this one to bed. At least you get to walk away with a modicum of credibility. Do so and I promise never to mention this again.

mind/like-a steal/trap;quote..<<..
Pure Classical Physics Research? Try finding that baby on the web.

Global warming?..“2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night;..>>

ITS/AMASING/LOLnow the bible is proof of warming
but thing mr brain/main-spring/o\sprung-steal..

if/we seen nuthin yet
and is maybe really possably etc[happen/conclusIVLY]..LOL

22 DECMBER/2030/eastern standard time/6 to 60 meters
that sounds more like a sumami

<<..in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.">>

yep thats real change
change change cange
everything stays the same
if its hot its gong to get hotter
if its cold its going to get colder/they have names for people like that/but im one[skeptics]..expepttheir the pessimists/yes the sky is falling..persimists or what?

<<"A NASA study..confirms..>>

confirms/what?
who predicted/what..that nasa/con*-firm,,<<..the Earth constantly receives..more energy..from the sun>>..lol....<<..than it reflects back into space.>>

well dHUHHH
IT CONVERTED/ITS ENERGY/INTO LIFE/PLANTS/COAL ETC

LOL

<<..A massive snow storm....would require a corresponding quantity..>>

OF SUNLIGHT/ENERGY/HEAT..A SNOW STORM/NEEDS COLD/HOT HEAT


<<.of solar energy
for the vaporization,,of its water.
The more massive..>>.LOL..<<..The snow is,..the

greater the quantity..>....WAIT/FOR..IT..<<>.,,of solar energy
required for the vaporization..of its water...Solar Energy...in the form of Radiant Heat..vaporizes the Waters..of the Earth from which the Snow..is produced by God's Nature”..>>

OK SURE..BUT..nature/is energy
as much as its 0PPOSING inversions
A CONSTANT OSMOSIS..AS MATTER/BECOMES ENERGY/AND ENERGY BECOMES MASS

damm caps

Come on mate put this one to bed.
At least you get to stay/and not run away..with a modicum of credibility...Do so and I promise..to mention this again..some/other time.

“ seeing real time human induced geological changes occurring before our eyes but the fears I have for my children and their futures is very sobering.”. Steele, that is loopy. You cling to your faith in AGW, despite the lack of anyscience to support it. You are not as rational as Dowdye, and have the gall to criticize him for his faith, which is a more wholesome faith than yours.Your faith is based on lies, and fraud.
Your attempt to smear Goddard does not detract from his factual report of the tampering by NOAA with the temperature record. Typical of the fraud-backer technique, when there was nothing you could do about the facts, you made an attempt to smear the messenger. What a loser you are, Steele.

Leo, why is the Gulf Stream warming?
Globally surface temperatures have been increasing.
Wildfires in Siberia, months before what had been seen to be the normal fire season, are but some examples of temperature/climate changing.
In an earlier note I gave a reference showing the impact of light on CO2.

It is very interesting that the US is about to launch a satellite to measure CO2 around the globe. A very expensive enterprise for what you term fraud, Leo. Especially, when they had previously tried to launch a similar satellite that crashed when being launched.

After writing the last note, I discovered this site which explains the wildfires in Siberia to a greater extent than other references found.

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/

A quote from above site:

"By May, more than a million acres had burned, all well before the typical peak of fire season in July and early August. But that was mere prelude to peak fire season, which we are starting to enter now."

I do not know, ant, what is warming the Gulf Stream, but it is not global warming, because that stopped 17 years ago. As we know, the global warming that we have experienced cannot be shown to be caused by human emissions, despite the considerable failed efforts to show that it is human caused:
‘The US federal government has spent 80 billion US dollars on climate research on the assumption that human caused rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem. Despite this, no one has yet found even a shred of objective scientific evidence that humans are causing damaging global climate change.
The so called evidence emanates from a vociferous group in the scientific community who, for a variety of reasons, are set on promoting predetermined conclusions not supported by empirical data or real-world observations. The science they rely on is all about the number of scientists who agree with them and claims of consensus to suppress quality control in climate research. “Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth”
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/chris-de-freitas/

You are really opposed to science, aren’t you ant. Why do you refuse to accept reality? RSS shows temperature has flat-lined

".... but it is not global warming, because that stopped 17 years ago."

What you're referencing is a plateau at record levels of the "surface air temperature".

The dumbness never ends around here.

“ dumbness never ends around here”. Yes, Poirot, but in your case, is it dumbness, or dishonesty?

You know it has been far hotter in the past. than it is today, with the small amount of warming, which occurred coming out of a mini ice age. What do you mean by “record levels”? Is that a stupid statement, or a dishonest one? Only you can tell us.

Warmists: if you don't care that what you're saying is fallacious, why do you bother discussing it?

Why do you care whether other people believe what you believe?

But if you do care that what you're saying is fallacious, why do you just keep endlessly repeating fallacies?

I get tired of pointing out the same factual errors, the same misrepresentations, the same circularities, the same non sequiturs, the same ad hominem, the same reversed onus of proof, the same redefinition of "science" to mean appeal to absent authority; the same evasion of questions that prove you categorically wrong; over and over again.

I mean for example these arguments about such and such's particular qualifications or personality, are just too stupid for words, because even if it were this or that, it wouldn't settle the issue about the DATA and the METHODOLOGY you fools. It would still only amount to an appeal to authority. How can you be so thick you don't understand that even after it's repeatedly explained to you? Honestly, your intellectual method is back in the Dark Ages.

What's the point of pointing out your process of reasoning is fallacious if you're just going to repeat all the fallacies that you shouldn't have made in the first place?

All it means is that you've lost the argument, and you're either too dumb or to dishonest to admit it. End of story. You lost. Unable to prove argument except by assuming it's true = you lost. Too dumb.

Never mind advanced climatology, you guys need to understand the basic requirements of logical thought.

The Arctic, Leo is a driver of climate; over the winter time temperatures were significantly higher in Alaska and Scandinavian countries. In one of my notes I included a film clip about how climate is impacting on people in Finland. A section of the short film was devoted to reindeer farming. The comment was made that the snow was becoming soft and instead of being able to walk over crisp snow reindeer were sinking into it and the view was that reindeer farming might not be possible in the future.
Here is the clip again:

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/2687/life-in-the-arctic-sami-view

The reference I gave in relation to Siberia shows that they have had significant wild fires there in April 2014. The April 2014 fires left smoke plumes able to be seen from satellites, the fires had fronts ranging from 3 to 34 miles.

Please provide support for the myth that you are trying to maintain about temperatures, the trend has been of them increasing.
Temperature is not only reflected in what a thermometer says but also in what is happening in the environment. Permafrost melting equals warmth. Over the last days there have been temperatures above 24C lately in some Canadian towns which is a temperature that is rarely passed. These Canadian towns are an indication of the trend Professor Lesack has written about when discussing the McKenzie River. Professor Lesack tracked temperature ranges from 1958 through till almost the present. his paper was published earlier this year.

Jardine K. Jardine, where is your evidence that anthropogenic climate change is not happening? In many of the notes I have written I have provided many examples of what is actually happening in an empirical sense. When I first became interested in climate change, I came across methane being vented. In earlier writings about methane it was being vented in ponds, a later paper was discussing methane being vented in a diametre of a kilometer; today I found it is being vented in a diameter of 150 kilometers off Siberia. It is warmth that is melting permafrost and the shallows off the Siberian Coast.

Global warming is not causing droughts and wildfires, ant, so you are making baseless assertions again
“Historically, the United States was struck by severe fires even before carbon dioxide reached current levels. In fact, the two largest fires in American history, according to the Weather Underground occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
A Wisconsin fire in 1871, “the single worst wild fire in U.S. history,” burned almost 3.8 million acres and killed 1,500 people. The second-worst was a 1910 fire in Idaho and Montana that killed 87 people and destroyed 3 million acres.
In fact, geological records bolster the evidence that earlier fires were more frequent. A 2009 analysis by R.M. Beaty and A.H. Taylor examined charcoal records in northern California to study wildfires over thousands of years. They found that “current fire episode frequency is at one of its lowest points in at least the last 14,000 years.”
Similar evidence challenged the connection between climate change and droughts.
This information is not surprising, . The San Jose Mercury News reported in January that “studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence” have revealed “severe megadroughts [that] make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame.” In fact, Scott Stine, an environmental studies professor at California State University, East Bay, studied tree ring data and found that while 2013 was a very dry year, this past century “has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years.”
. A group of researchers led by J.A. Kleppe found in 2011 that “dry conditions have occurred regularly, in cyclical fashion, ‘every 650-1150 years,” suggesting “there is nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented about the nature of [Californian] drought.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/06/05/networks-blame-wildfires-droughts-climate-change-despite-fact-they-ve-dec

You give no consideration to the facts or science before you make your assertions. You have no basis on which to expect evidence to refute your assertions. They are refuted by showing that they are without foundation, and contrary to science, like your assertion of AGW.
Where is the science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate?

As to cessation of global warming, the Satellite temperature record shows no warming for 17 years 6 months as at February 2014.
“Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months.”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/updated-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/
I hope this clarifies the situation for you, Poirot

Leo, you provide a political reference plus Monckton as supporting what you say.
In relation to wildfires/bushfires climate change creates accentuated conditions for these to occur. Australia is a country where bushfires are a major matter is well known. Australian firies as do their Californian colleagues tell us that climate change is having a further impact on the nature of bushfires. Climate change intensifies bushfire/wildfire conditions. In January 2014, there were two wildfires in heathland in Norway, their winter.
The wildfires are normally experienced in Siberia beginning from about now till August. Over the years the fire season has been happening earlier and earlier.
Nobody denies Leo the major weather conditions in the past. Climate change scientists tell us that these kind of events will happen on a more regular basis.
A quote from a previous reference:

"This winter, temperatures throughout large swaths of this typically frigid land of tundra and boreal forest ranged between 5 and 7 degrees Celsius above average." (Siberia)
Temperatures have been higher than usual in The Arctic region generally over the last winter. There has been a warming trend happening over decades.

https://weather.gc.ca/data/analysis/351_100.gif

Investigate what the map means Leo. You claim that climate change is a fraud so should easily be able to interpret the map shown in the above site. Hint the temperatures shown are a real worry.

Monckton is not a scientist Leo, he is a very good communicator; but, the information he provides is not reliable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXS8l3_Yhh0

The film is not a personal attack on him but debunks the points that he makes.

Science is a very rational empirical based way of finding how things work; your newsbusters reference presents a politically conservative viewpoint. Its about as reliable as Red Flag as a source, an extreme left wing group. Science is neither left wing nor right wing in the information provided.

the/ant/has-a declared-intrest
if/global-warming=proved/he the hero/disproved=the/fool

so read/the wurds/of a fool.
final/party-guest/refusing/to go-home..<<..The Arctic,.Leo is a driver of climate;>

yes/of course/the artic[tell/me]ant]/why is there an/antar-tarktrick[cause the sun/shines\its warmth/pon them briefly/thus they retain/the g=coldness of outsr-space/get it\sun heats/only half the globe at a time/while spece cools

yes/a/lol\'driver'/but]it-self/driven/by outer\space

less/or no heat;sun.<<.over the winter time temperatures were significantly higher in Alaska and Scandinavian countries.>

while the rest of the world froze[now the snow melt as far as mexico/has smelting snow/only now melting in mid/northern/summer

<</In one of my notes I included a film clip??>

THEY WERE GREENIES/SELLING WIND-POWER[IE PAID ADVERT]

<<.The comment/the snow was becoming soft..>

oh dear light fluffy snow/not icy sleet/THIS TIME
BUT THEN ANT BRAINS/GETS CUTE.<<.and instead of being able to walk over crisp snow reindeer were sinking into it.[THUS SCRAPING IT AWAY EASIER THAN SLEET/SHEET-ICE[YOU GREEN LICE]

<<>and the view was that reindeer farming*.might not be possible in the future.>

oh deer/no farming/because educated kids got better things to do/like work for greenies making movies/instead of following deer in the sleet

well go figuremovies are such a source for science info
opinion/wet feet=no nmore deer farming ever[the dear deer arnt extinct/but lol wet smow/out gone/move on[only those living past glories live on

Here is the/blIzzard/of.=oz/
]be-CAUSE....clip again:

<<.Siberia shows that they have had significant wild fires there in>

damm greenies

<<.the fires had fronts..ranging from 3 to 34 miles.>>

the legths some will GO/HOW MANY SEED-fire'S THEY DID SOW
ALL THAT BURNING/OF WET SLUSHY SNOW.wow ant way/to/blow.

its funnt ant/your talking about gloBAL warNING yet its reindeer and snow jobs

<<Please provide support..for the myth>

please supply science fact/not just every fire/wind/storm/freeze/or thaw

science aNT
<</.the trend has been of them increasing.>>

PRESENT PROOF/ITS REFUTED/THE NUMBERS ARE POLUTED[READ ADJUSTED]\

CLEARLY ANTS/NEVER LEARN/THE LAW/OF ENERGy CONSERVATION
[HEAT IS TAKEN/IN..OR GIVEN OUT[IE SNOW MELTS CAUSE ITS TAKING HEAT IN

OR IS IT COLD IS GIVEN OUT?

Dont shout<<> Permafrost melting equals warmth.>>

you saying so/dont proof nuthin

here comes a hot/front.<<>Over the last days there have been temperatures above 24C lately in some Canadian towns which is a temperature that is rarely passed. These Canadian towns are an indication of the trend Professor Lesack has written about>

lol

did he name these SPECIFIC/towns[in canada]?

<<>methane being vented...In earlier writings about methane it was being vented in ponds,>

interesting/my council/is draining every swamp[not warming/doing-it/but\council

<<.methane being vented in a diametre of a kilometer; today I found it is being vented in a diameter of 150 kilometers off Siberia.>>

ok/how\much frakking methane/leakage/over the lat ten years/its trippled/yet syill we got melting snow/not icy sleet..i/prefer my snow[soft]

<<>It is warmth>>

from what/dear-ant?

from the oceons of frozen methane on the sea floors/ready to rise up/to set the seas on fire[see the brning seas signs/of end times/studied methane/you mus know of the sea methane danger/and your expetease/yet silence/we arnt the danger/if you gree energuy seeking alarmists trying to safly harvest the sea floor methne

ant/hill/quote<<.. Australia/bushfires......is having a further impact on the nature of bushfires..>

yes i seen/their fruits/locally
they burn-off vast acerages/of forrest/each forest charing the itter/ready to ignte hotter next time/a traditional/bush fire is a flash fire/smokey fires are bad burns/BURNT BY IGNORANT FOOLS[AFTER A BURN/GO CLEAN/UP THE XCHARCOLE/in chunks or arround the roots/so much idiocy re burning/but what you saying=nothing so far

<<.Climate change intensifies bushfire/wildfire conditions.>

no idiots thinking its just set and burn=is
these things must be planed/fast/clean.over in a flash

<<.In January 2014,there were two wildfires in heathlandin Norway>

oh/no.the sky is falling[it wasnt campers/nor greenies/nor lighteningstrike[STIKE/ME PINK]

<<>Over the years the fire season has been happening earlier and earlier.>>

YES GO LOOK AT THE LITTER BEFORE/SEE THE LITTER AFTER[ITS NOT A FIREPLACE/ITS FOR NEW LIFE[IM GOING TO PHOT SOME SHOTS FOR YOU[do you have a site i can post/the pictures//its tradjic/the ignorance/globaly

<<Nobody denies Leo the major weather conditions in the past>>

.<<..There has been a warming trend happening over decades.
https://weather.gc.ca/data/analysis/351_100.gif

Investigate what the map means Leo.

THEN/BULLSHHH IT.<<You claim that climate change is a fraud>

FORGET NAME-CALLING/WHAT ARE YOU SAYING/NOT presuming leo-to/say?

>?/Hint the temperatures shown are a real worry.

<<.Monckton/the information he provides/he beat/all-gore.in court with-it
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
PLEASE GET EDUCATED
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html

ant/minds//prophetic-utterance.<<as reliable as Red Flag as a source, an extreme left wing group..Science is neither left wing nor right wing..in the information provided.>]provided/their using real numbers]and not biased as to end fruit/rewards/or\pay-off/fame/FORTUNE;for one resuklt/over]other

Leo you keep demanding definitive proof that human activities are affecting the climate.

This is on a par with demanding proof that chemistry or mathematics is correct. We know they are substantial correct simply because they work. Climate science is no different. The weather forecast is usually correct for the next day and often is right several days out. A weather forecast uses the same principles to establish surface temperatures as do the scientists who warn us about the consequences of adding excessive amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

The only way it is possible to provide the proof you seek is to compare identical earths, one with added GHGs and one without, the best we can do is to look at the past history of the earth, which strongly suggests that the level of GHGs particularly CO2 influence surface temperatures.

It is clear that global surface temperatures have risen since the 1970s the question is why? so far the only satisfactory explanation is some sort of change to the atmosphere or oceans. The only global change we know of is the addition of GHGs to the atmosphere which also is the result predicted by climate science.

Sad to say the only fraud being committed is by those who seek to deliberately mislead people, because it is a huge financial risk to their business interests.

Leo, you say "As to cessation of global warming, the Satellite temperature record shows no warming for 17 years 6 months as at February 2014."

How does this reference fit in with what you say:

http://www.usnews.com/news/science/news/articles/2014/06/23/heat-repeat-globe-breaks-may-temperature-record

Quote: "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Monday said May's average temperature on Earth of 59.93 degrees Fahrenheit (15.54 degrees Celsius) beat the old record set four years ago. In April, the globe tied the 2010 record for that month. Records go back to 1880." Its from Associated Press, just reporting facts.
There are many more newspaper reports that say much the same thing.

You have clarified your problem, warmair. You have great gaps in your education. An educated person has seen the proofs of chemistry and mathematics during their schooling. You somehow missed this, which explains your confused state now. You believe that scientific proof is not necessary for scientific assertions. You are the generic fraud-backer. When asked for proof of your baseless assertions, you come up with this ridiculous analogy, of no validity whatsoever. What is not proved in mathematics is axiomatic, from which everything else is provable.
There is nothing axiomatic in the fraud-backers’ assertion about climate change. It requires scientific proof, or it is baseless. Chemistry is proved by experiment and observation.
Observation of reality, in relation to the fraud-backers assertions proves them wrong. At a time of increase in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, global warming has stopped. This is the opposite of the effect asserted by fraud-backers like yourself.
When you have no science to support your assertions, I suppose you have to try something, even though you make a bigger fool of yourself in so doing.

Ant,

You seem to be disputing Leo’s claim that <<Satellite(s) temperature record shows no warming for 17 years 6 months as at February 2014>>

There is no disputing it –the official warmist publications now openly admit it—see here:
<<Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation….Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. …
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

It’s another one of those heads-we-win-tales-you-lose games true believers like to play:

First, deny it is happening “what hiatus?”

But when they think they have an excuse it becomes-- "Oh yes it happened...BUT”

And that sort of behaviour loses you any independent thinkers –Poirot and Steele will still be lead along by the nose –but anyone not motivated by political extremism, will shy away.

The cessation of global warming is confirmed by NOAA’s temperature record, ant. I drew your attention to NOAA’s tampering with the temperature record to change a cooling trend to a warming trend. Steele, you will recall, smeared the originator of the report, but neither he nor any one else contradicted the record tampering by NOAA, which now comes up, in the article to which you link, with the usual irrelevant “hottest day”assertions. Typical fraud backing article, ant, no science and no relevance. Much like your posts.

Dear SPQR,

Well you have some gumption I will give you that. Back after quoting from your poster boy Dr Dowdye Jnr. I thought you might have retired to fight another day leaving us with the 'Tinkmiester'.

Okay so what do you have for us now? Oh the old 'hiatus' story huh. Well my friend that has kind of been superseded by April's global temperature figures which were the second highest on record and by May's figures which were the highest.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201404.gif

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201405.gif

Now that is some inconvenient truth right there.

On a lighter note I did enjoy this piece from Huffington Post;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidgoldstein/interview-with-a-climate-change_b_5325343.html

Yes Leo --I remember well how <<Steele... smeared the originator of the report>>

Yes indeed, that was what I was referring to.When Steele was asked to comment on the reasons for the hiatus. He denied it --he smeared it --he did everything a blind-faith believer would do.

But to be fair to Steele perhaps he hadn't caught up with his reading. He might not have read the latest AGW church fathers encyclical.

__________________________________________

Dear Steele,

You missing the point [AGAIN!]. The warmist authorities *ADMIT* [repeat-- ADMIT] the hiatis. You cannot deny it away by cherry picking a few hot days.

<<Dr Dowdye Jnr...>>
I stand by my proposition look at his theories on their merits.
One day when you're wiser you will wake up to it ...I can see it now you're shuffle down Bourke street in you're walking frame when it suddenly hits you ..."Gosh SPQR was right after all!"

Dr Natalia Shakhova was interviewed by Nick Breeze via skype in relation to a winter trip she had come back from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf earlier this year. She commented that water temperatures were significantly higher than they should be by 6-7 degrees.

I have been continually going to a site that discusses what is happening in the Arctic Region; a couple of days ago the melt rate had been about 6th or 7th in relation to the particular day. A quote from the particular site:
"NSIDC just posted a 171k drop for 2nd July 2014, which puts 2014 just 148k behind 2012 on NSIDC extent figures. If this year continues at its present rate, it will pass 2012 NSIDC figures by 5th July 2014."

That does not necessarily mean that ice melt will reach the extent of 2012 by September, but currently ice melt is well on the way to beating the extent of sea ice extent of 2012.

Ice melt in the Arctic moves a bit like a yoyo, the point I'm making is that temperatures are quite high in the Arctic region at present.
As area covered by water opens up, the ice becomes more subject to cyclonic activity; the longer the fetch of waves pushed by storms, the greater the damage they can do.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Comments by Dr Shakhova in relation to temperature anomalies in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and the extent of sea ice breakdown are an indication there has been an increase in temperature in the Arctic region. Also, borne out by high temperatures in Alaska during the winter period, and high temperatures in Northern Canada at present.

ITS SAD/SOME SET/OUT\TO DIVIDE/MOCK\moctone-refutes.
to heal/the divide/note the reveal/at 1/hour;14 minute mark
http://rss.infowars.com/20140703_Thu_Alex.mp3

other factors/im noting warmongering increases temp/
hot time comming up/or rather gowing-down/
down/ALEX JONES BROADCAST/EXPLAINS

OTHER;/WHY/bother/borther[not re-direction/of\effort
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/timely-posters-of-the-day/ http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/rabbi-calls-for-more-bloodshed-via-facbook/ Back in 800 AD, a bunch of Central Asian Khazars converted to Judaism, and now because they have adopted the religion of the ancient Hebrews claim a higher right to the lands of Palestine than the Palestinians who have been there for two thousand years.

This article points out the silliness of that claim! http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/tiredfingers.php EXAMPLES OF HATE SPEECH BY ISRAEL AGAINST PALESTINE
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/zionists-heightens-blumenthal.html http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/palestinians.php

"We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/cia-terrorism-brought-home/ Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/israel-preparing-new-military-offensive-gaza/ In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day."
(Michael Ben-Yair, 3 March 2002) (emphasis added) http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/activists-mobilize-palestinians-face-israeli-onslaught/ ISRAEL & PALESTINE: THE MAPS TELL THE TRUE STORY
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html

The truth is that far from being the poor victim it likes to portray itself as, Israel is in fact the most aggressive and belligerent nation in the region, having invaded pretty much everyone it shares a border with.

The following maps show just who is wiping who off of the map!

Ant,

Quick question: do you agree there has been a haitus --yes or no?

Or are you in the same camp as Sergeant of the Guard Steele-Schultz:"I see nothing, and I know nothing"
http://hh.wikia.com/wiki/Hans_Schultz?file=Sgt._Schultz.jpg

Loe my best subjects at school were Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, I well understand how they work. The steps for the physical sciences are observation, explanation and prediction and to back to the start again. This is the traditional scientific method which I would hope you are well aware of. There are no proofs that any particular theory or explanation is correct, predictions lead to new observations which may either support the theory, reject it, or are uncertain. Pure mathematics on the other can produce absolute proofs provided the initial information is correct.

Climate science has progressed a long way and we now have a pretty clear idea how radiation controls surface temperature. The observations and the theory both agree close enough to enable us to make reasonably accurate weather forecasts. Yet you are happy to dismiss the same theories when applied to the probable effects of adding GHGs to the atmosphere.

Frankly your views on climate change are politically tainted. It is clear from some of the links you provide that you will uncritically accept any link which supports your view point

SPQR,

The "hiatus" is in "surface air temperature"...not in ocean warming - all part of our complex planetary climate system.

In any case, pointless to discuss climate change around here with deniers purveying junk-science peppered with ad hominem.

POUT../AND\RUN;
quote/<<..In any case,..pointless
to..dis*cuss.climate change around\here/with deniers>>

YOU\MEAN/HOLOW-CAUSE-DENIERS

-HOW PATHETIC/WHEN...WE THROW DEAD/BABIES\AT EACH-OTHER
pure/love..you know/of\the hollowCAust/of course/
WHaT/TO GET\..A NEW TAX-IN..[WE]..disrespect.THE DEAD NOW?

TALKING OF...<<,,.purveying/junk-science/peppered with/ad-hominem...>>

HOT-AIR/ROTE\QUOTE..<<<<..my best\subjects/..The steps\for the physical*sciences/are observation,/explanation..and prediction..>>

the-fools/best*subject..lol.
and..he gets/the orders-wrong'lol
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=SCIENCE+METHODOLIGY+PREDICT+OBERVE+EXplain&

the/warmist-nong/talks..a big-game/YET\LOL/gets
his*orders/wrong\THE/nong*/dont-belong/

its pathetic/rather\than sad/but.hey it/getsthe chicks hot
love /often occurs\under times of/streess...so i know why/guys get into..this the/worlds ending\pay me your rent/..but shielas?

really/please..do us/a favour/guys/without gals
do the research/really\do/try to grasp/the numbers
[that laST/ant-graph showed..a neat divide/between..the red times/and the blue-..times/summer/winter/..lol..\go figure/

*but/look_at/the heading..[even check/out/THE-DATES/souces]

THING IS/THEY\BEEN 17 YEARS...going the\wrong way
listen yo..ignorants*refute what monkton says
http://rss.infowars.com/20140703_Thu_Alex.mp3

but\hey.There you got/the latest warMist/spoof

lol
how droll
look lover/i love you/for yoUr loyalty
but mate/there-is /he cause/affect..*[not proven]
the/best\propsective-action/depends-on..*if its heating/
or\IF\//its-really/cooling..[so whats/it doing?]

please pick/on..dear johan
the world..is warming[or]/cooling[who ya-all/think ya fooling?

listen to mokton/he talks of..17 thousaND POUNDS..[NOT/puny-ants/$10,000..SOME ANT BRAIN/PUT\INTO/OUR MIND
note/HE..IS THE JUDGE[its his prize]
his/choice/who/win/or\lose,

so here-we go..a unique olo oppertuinity
you prove..this man made warning thing/i give you\my house
last valuation..put it/[my share]over quarter a million
its yours/*

*once you convince/me\lol/that its/just like\that ant brained fiend/pretends/

if your*/so freaking sure*refute the links
or refute us*refuting yours..[its rather\pathetic/that both are adulterate/verging on lies..and spIn/and\special witness/rather that experts-in their own fields.[willing to give/up/their-own/wealth/if proven lies!]

99%/was-it\
scientists/supporting gw/lies?

you wannna/bet\my house
bet\your own/a tax by any other name/paYS\FOR MORE
POLLUTION/building..the damm thing's.[please note/that .gas=dead/apparently/you might\not have heard/those with gas contracts/prefer\to sell*their order/for gas\to the world/for double return*

lol

the result/we just\rebuilt/a coal
fired genie/and going =..to fire it up/again/soon.
coal is back-on the up/gas generation gave their/gas\up/to the market
why use it*to produce power/when we\can sell it/for double/plus no trouble?

your lost\HOLLOW-cause/of the lies
it was..a pipe-dream/and now\the nightmare nears iTS END/im stuck with doubled -water prices/and tripple\the power cost

enrom bastERDRY/thats the reality/ol friend
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html

<>>This is the traditional scientific method

LOL/OH..u\WARMIST/YOU\
u/SCIENCE-ILLITERATES/MATE..YA JUST..CRACK-ME/UP.

SPQR, your comment about me being like Sgt Schultz, ""I see nothing, and I know nothing"" is a good one.
How many deniers have brought up the matter of reindeer virtually getting bogged in snow in Finland, how many have written about Inuit culture being impacted, how many have discussed erosion of coastlines in Alaska, what about thermokarst lakes and failure, health concerns raised through epidemiological assessments etc etc.
I have tried to stay with the pragmatics of climate change, all these matters and more have been raised here on Onlineopinion.
There have hardly been any nibbles in relation to the spreading of illnesses created through climate change. Nobody has picked up on fish being caught off Greenland that are associated with warmer waters further South. The same is happening off the East Coast of Australia.

Last month the temperature where I live was 1.5C above normal for day time, and .9C for night time. While we have only just begun July, the day time above average is 1.8C, and night time is 3.3C above normal.
It doesn't prove climate change, but certainly shows that weather can vary a lot; when temperature taken over a number of years that shows climate change. Weatherzone is a good site to pick up weather forecasts, it also gives information about temperature, and rainfall averages for a month.

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/

SPQR, I'm aware of what has been termed the hiatus since Matt England wrote a paper about how the ocean was picking up a significant amount of warmth.
Climate change is a complex subject there are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers written about it; there are very few professional papers written against climate change. All major National Science bodies believe it is occurring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88jEdz7OGx0&list=UUBqZtL-ZnhP0EeNadeHGP-w

Leo
Below is a more elegant description of the point I was trying to make.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

OUG
The staring point is an observation otherwise there is nothing to explain.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+proof
Quote
scientific method
n.
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

Ant
You may not be that trilled by weatherzone when you look at some of views expressed on their forums by climate deniers. Anyway the Bom site is better in all respects and for the most part weatherzone is only collating their info. Try
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=maxanom&period=12month&area=nat

@Ant,

<< your comment about me being like Sgt Schultz>>
Sorry Ant, I wasn’t saying you were like Sgt Schultz. I was saying that Steele was. I was only asking if you wanted to line up with him.
You come across as being relatively open minded. The points you make are no doubt valid but if is not up to non-believers to explain away every piece of "evidence". It is up to the believers to show their case is *water tight*.

The telling point about the question of the hiatus is that those who claimed to operate according to scientific principle –like Steele & co --(earlier on) dodged any questions about it and did everything they could to disparage anyone who even raised them.

____________________________________
@ Poirot,
This Poirot shooting herself in the foot again:
“[it is] pointless to discuss climate change around here with deniers purveying junk-science peppered with ad hominem”

Knock knock, what is “denier” if not the biggest ad hominem of all!
(it’s rather telling that some are so used to using that term that they no longer see it as ad hominem)

_____________________________________________
@Warmair
<<Frankly your views on climate change are politically tainted. It is clear from some of the links you provide that you will uncritically accept any link which supports your view point>>

I don’t use any link to support “my view point”—I link to them to see if you have reasonable answers. And what I am seeing, from your side, is a mighty lot of sidestepping and attempts to browbeat.

warmair, I'm not surprised that climate deniers don't particularly like Weatherzone.
Continually seeking weather reports has been a constant activity when going up into the mountains or going out to sea after weather reports online became readily available.
I use Weatherzone, Willy Weather, BOM and barometre. I have found Weatherzone is quite accurate in what it forecasts. Deniers would not like how temperature and rainfall are compared to the long term average and monthly averages, on a daily basis.

Ant
Actually I see the climate change forum has been closed down on weatherzone but the site was well know for supporting climate change denial. I understand that the owner is skeptical about climate change.

SPQR
I have no problem with the last link you put up re the hiatus I can not say the same for most of the links that Leo has come up with.

hot-air/quote..<<..OUG
The staring-point is an observation
otherwise there-is nothing/to explain.>>

dear hotfart/the observations begin with a thesus
the thesus-ists man made warming/or cooling or sfc/or man-made ozone holes or nuke-tests in our atmosphere/and ya got nuthin/the thesus is refuted/any obsERvations are too biased

its insane/now yoU revealed your ignorances on science method/to feign knowing by putting uP a link[because i know your lots links have a habit/of chaNGING AND DISAPPEARING OR OTHER MODIFIERS LIKE HIDE/THAT/GREENFART

YOUR THESES/LACKS Quote
scientific method
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+proof

BUT/FOR A LAUGH/LETS SEE/YA LATEST GUESS

<..The principles and empirical processes of discovery>>

you lot got no principles/ya no sooner get revealed fake/than ya put up the next lie/ya lot are making it up as you go/plus you got no idea why/clearly you missed what happened after monkton.

point being hot/liquefied air..warmists got no concept of truth
do your self/a favour..compare your predictions[ie ya balked model/bliNG]
COMPARE YA 'PROJECTIONS/FROM 12 YEARS AG0
//YOU LOT CANT KEEP..YA TIMING TO ya lies

no princiles/no discovery[in fact
hide the data/seems the go]

so lacking in science methheads/..<<.and demonstration>>

lol

lol

lol

demo/you lot can demonstarait all ya like/but ya ONLY/got..demo/nodel/bling

NON WARMIST-demons demon /straight..that..<<>.considered characteristic of or necessary..for scientific investigation,>>

AND HOT/warmist-air/head-BOTT
CANT EVEN..GET THAT RIGHT

tell me airhead
/whats/the characteristic...of\or/nessisity for*
the 187 billuion wasted on this warming/cooling hot fart smell/hell

<<..generally involving the observation of phenomena,
the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the >>

please advise re steps you feel VALIDATE//your.<<>>hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.>>>

god made too many fools
BUT HEY THATS WHY THEY GOT SCHOOLS.
trouble is idiots are thinking their know/it-all"s.
its insane/trying to reasin with hot airheads/and useless ants/SPOUTING PURE ROT.

ok ya get YA TAX/GEE ITS HOT
how come the tax didnt fix it?
ITS PATHETIC YOU THINK ARGUING WITH ME IS GOING TO CO0L THE EARTH
at least while your ere your not wasting others time.

keep talking to the hand/your links dont even work/at time of posting/let alone when we sue all those who/lied.

SPQR, you say it "... is not up to non-believers to explain away every piece of "evidence"."
Much of what is written by disbelievers just amounts to "Nuh" without any explanation. Politicians talk about the need for debate on many matters; but there is no debate when the response is virtually just "Nuh". All the points about conspiracies of one sort or another really just amount to "Nuh".

To suggest fraud has taken place goes beyond "Nuh" and needs proper evidence that it has happened. There have been a number of reviews in relation to "climategate"; nobody has been found to be guilty of fraud as a result. Now I guess there is a conspiracy in relation to a major cover up, just nonsense.

As warmair said the matter of hiatus is a real point.

Any Agency with the name "Institute" is suspect as they push a particular political view eg IPA. There are Labor Think Tank examples as well.
Any references from Goddard, Watts and Monckton will not dent the arguments of those who believe in climate change; it is known that there are major flaws in what they present.
Watts has been caught out in alleging temperature was mishandled in the US. It was taken seriously and reviewed, and Watts was found to be completely wrong. I have raised the matter of volume and extent elsewhere in relation to sea ice; you need to do mental somersaults to get around that one.

The Tobacco Industry fought off the knowledge that cigarettes causes lung cancer and a number of other health issues for years.
The Tobacco Industry is part of Heartlands and techniques learnt from the Tobacco Industry are now employed against climate scientists and citizens; such as, obfuscation, cherry picking, discredit those who push climate science, and projection.
Be suspicious of books written about science, as books provide a way to get around peer reviewed content.

no/warming..17-years/10\mths
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/rss-shows-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/

Apollo Astronaut:declares/Climate Alarmism
Is the ‘Biggest Fraud/in the Field of Science’

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/apollo-astronaut-climate-alarmism-biggest-fraud-field-science

Climate alarmism is "the biggest fraud in the field of science" and the 97% consensus claim is nonsensical, Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham tells MRCTV in a preview of his presentation at the upcoming Heartland Institute climate conference, July 7-9.

"Since about 2000, I looked farther and farther into it," Col. Cunningham (USMC, Ret.) tells MRCTV in an exclusive interview. "I found that not one of the claims that the alarmists were making out there had any bearings, whatsoever. And, so, it was kind of a no-brainer to come to the conclusion."

Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact - but also as even qualifying as an actual "theory":

Another Antarctic sea ice record set – but excuses abound

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/02/another-antarctic-sea-ice-record-set-but-excuses-abound/

Today Cryosphere reports 2,112 million km2 more sea ice around Antarctica than normal.

Reality is that we right now have an area matching the size of Greenland of extra sea ice floating around Antarctica. The nightmare for the global warming believers is if the growing ice around Antarctica should be linked to cooling, and so:
1) Some Re-analysis papers and more have been made showing that the ocean around Antarctica is not cooling (as original data suggests) but is in stead warming fast.
2) Several mechanisms have been suggested to argue how come ice can grow so much faster when in fact the water is supposed to have warmed up.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-ndaa-explained-in-3-minutes/
natures going to bite
see what man/can mAKE/NATURE UNMAKES
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8W1ql2P9dY
regardless of how much tax or insuance tAxation/they extract
http://investmentwatchblog.com/hurricane-arthur-intensifies-as-it-heads-for-north-carolina-category-3/

catch22=screwu
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/NSA6/clear.jpg

THESE/GUYS/GREENIES-HIGH/ON\WARMING/buzzz
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2680519/Global-warming-creating-MORE-glaciers-Antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-high-climate-change-scientists-claim.html

http://investmentwatchblog.com/nasa-launches-satellite-to-observe-earths-breathing/

Hi Ant,

Here's some *food* for thought. This is a -slightly annotated- article from "Time" June 23, 2014 –PLEASE CONSIDER THE PARALLELS:

“In 1977, the year before I was born, a Senate committee led by George McGovern published its landmark ‘Dietary Goals for the United States,’ urging Americans to eat less high-fat red meat, eggs and dairy and replace them with more calories from fruits, vegetables and especially carbohydrates...
[picture George McGovern as a earlier Al Gore and fat as CO2]

By 1980 that wisdom was codified. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued its first dietary guidelines and one of the primary directives was to avoid cholesterol and fat of all sorts. The National Institutes of Health recommended that all Americans over the age of 2 cut fat consumption, and the same year the government announced the results of a $150 million study, which had a clear message: Eat less far and cholesterol to reduce your risk of heart attack…
[yep! The science is settled --nows the time for direct action --picture this as Obama's new environmental laws ..the Oz carbon taxes ...and those almost weekly climate spruiting reports]

Nearly four decades later, the results are in: the experiment was a failure. Americans cut the fat, but by almost every measure, they are sicker than ever…‘Americans were told to cut fat to lose weight and prevent heart disease,’ says Dr David Ludwig …there’s an overwhelmingly strong case to be made for the opposite’ But …despite the evidence to support it . The vilification of fat is now deeply embedded in American culture…
[picture the 17 year hiatus & similar anomalies -- and anyone who raises questions about it being shouted down]

The US’s demonisation of fat may have backfired in ways it is just beginning to understand..."
["HOUSTON we have a problem! apropos those charts you gave us -when did the Moon acquire a huge multicolour ring? & satellites of its own...Houston,Houston are you there? --or with reference to the IPCC & climate change -how did we come to loose all our infustries and revert to third world status?]

SPQR, I'm not sure that the parallels you are trying to draw are there.
.People's lifestyles have changed.
.In 1977 electronic devices were not available and people tended to be more active.
.There wasn't the proliferation of fast food outlets as there are now ( in Australia, anyway)
.People were not drinking cordials loaded with sugar to the extent they do now.
.People tend to be more sedentary through using their electronic devices.

The same trend is happening in Australia. Cutting down on cholesterol levels has been pushed here. The diet industry hardly existed from memory in 1977 here, there wasn't the emphasis on looks as there is now. Using dieting programs is a sure way to end up putting on more weight in the long run for many people.
Doctors still have the view that cholesterol is bad, they have been able to distinguish fats that are harmful and those that have not impacts on the body. Last year on Catalyst there was a program (Heart of the Matter) about not using statins to reduce cholesterol levels. The presenter was attacked by the medical profession after the showing. The medical profession did not have anything to gain other than the health of their patients.

NT/WAS DOING..SO GOOD..<<..The same trend is happening in Australia. Cutting down on cholesterol levels has been pushed here.>>

<<..The diet industry hardly existed[from memory]in 1977 here,
there wasn't the emphasis on looks as there is now.>>

lol

too funny
in so many ways

who is twiggy?
why did karen carpenter starve to death
[cause her mongrel bother told her she is too fat

anyhow..THE DOWN-SIDE/OF LIGHT BULBS
http://investmentwatchblog.com/obama-creates-a-new-bank-as-he-rolls-out-his-agenda-21-transportation-plan-via-executive-orders/

[PLEASE/GOOGLE..THE LIGHT-BULB CONSPIRICY]
moRE/BLOW-BACK..
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/03/oklahoma-earthquakes-fracking-waste-water-wells
http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/06/fracking-flowback-could-pollute-groundwater-heavy-metals
http://www.zengardner.com/staged-disaster-looms/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28128772
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28130982
this
http://investmentwatchblog.com/obama-creates-a-new-bank-as-he-rolls-out-his-agenda-21-transportation-plan-via-executive-orders/
LEADS2THAT.

http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/corrupt-corporate-ran-big-media-in-america?xg_source=activity

http://www.thelonestarwatchdog.com/2014/07/04/declaration-people-2014/

http://rinf.com/alt-news/uk-news/makes-us-stronger-strike-together-say-activists-run-10-july-walkout/

http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/withdraw-your-consent-25-ways-to-declare-your-independence-07042014

http://investmentwatchblog.com/how-wall-street-manipulates-the-buy-to-rent-housing-racket/

“Leo you keep demanding definitive proof that human activities are affecting the climate.

This is on a par with demanding proof that chemistry or mathematics is correct”.
When you said this, warmair, I took you to be lacking education. As you say, you received appropriate schooling, so you know better than to make such a baseless statement. You are well aware that the assertions made about AGW are not axiomatic, and require scientific proof, particularly as the assertions are shown by current observation to be wrong.
Since you know that your statement is baseless, you did not make it through ignorance, so your statement was dishonest. It is a fraud-backing statement.
Here is an extract from a link that you will find helpful, posted by OUG. It is Apollo astronaut Walter Cunningham talking about AGW:
"To me, it's almost laughable, it's the biggest fraud in the field of science,certainly in my lifetime, maybe the biggest one in centuries."
"If you go back and you look at the data that has been well-documented over the years, you can look and see, for example, that right now both carbon dioxide and temperature are simultaneously at one of the lowest levels in at least the last 600-800 million years. The last time they were both together at this low a level, more or less, was 300 million years ago, and if you go back go back about 500-600 million years ago, carbon dioxide was 15 times higher than what it is now. So, what I'm getting at is this, the history shows you that most of this is just plain nonsensical today."

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/apollo-astronaut-climate-alarmism-biggest-fraud-field-science
As you are no doubt aware, warmair, astronauts are highly trained scientists.

Lol!

"....It is Apollo astronaut Walter Cunningham talking about AGW:"

"As you are no doubt aware, warmair, astronauts are highly trained scientists."

Oh, here's a good article on the subject:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/12/attacks-climate-science-nasa-staff

We have seen many examples of climate denialists producing long lists of fake experts, for example the Oregon Petition and the Wall Street Journal 16. Now we have yet another of these lists of fake experts. 49 former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) employees (led by Harrison Schmitt, who was also one of the Wall Street Journal 16) have registered their objection to mainstream climate science through the most popular medium of expressing climate contrarianism - a letter. As is usually the case in these climate contrarian letters, this one has no scientific content, and is written by individuals with not an ounce of climate science expertise, but who nevertheless have the audacity to tell climate scientists what they should think about climate science."

"Obviously this letter first gained attention because the signatories are former NASA employees. They are being touted as "top astronauts, scientists, and engineers" and "NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience." Okay, but in what fields does their expertise lie?

Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science). Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers...."

(The old fake expert trick...always worth a visit to an OLO climate thread for some jollies:)

Leo, Astronauts are not specialists in climate science; but you are saying that scientists who believe what you say have credibility but any scientist involved with climate science do not, no logic there.

Carbon dioxide is continually measured at a number of stations; in pre-Industrial Revolution times there was something like 270+- ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, now it has crept up to just a a tad over 400ppm +-. Very easily checked.

http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/GreenhouseGas/data/CapeGrim_CO2_data_download.txt

In May 2014 the amount of CO2 measured was 401.85 ppm at Hawaii. The CSIRO reference shows how the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been steadily rising.

Methane another greenhouse gas has moved from about 790 ppb to 1990 ppb in a short time frame. Methane is released from tundra areas and fairly shallow waters that are ice covered. Cold temperatures keep it stable but the amount being voided is increasing.

A couple of years ago a friend with a Maths Science background went to a Plimer presentation. My mate stated that Plimer was talking about water vapour as not being a greenhouse agent. The atmosphere being warmer allows for more water vapour to be carried in clouds; but when it is released, it releases big time (Britain, US, Bosnia/Serbia, Austria, Brazil, and China all in 2014). So we have a geologist who spoke about an area out of his expertise (atmospherics) who got it wrong.

oug
Anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are eating disorders and are listed in DSM 5 and ICD-10 as psychological/psychiatric conditions.

So it is sad the talented Karen Carpenter died from an eating disorder, that has no bearing on the subject discussed. Yes, I remember twiggy as well, she was extremely slim. There would have been millions of slim people about in 1977 and numbers of obese as well when the US review was completed in 1977.
In Australia there were few magazines in 1977 pushing diets, Woman's Day, New Idea and Woman's Weekly not many more. There has been a proliferation of magazines and media reports since about diet and body image.

DEAR ANT/YET again/you reveal..your limitations of thinking
your measuring c02/but then get dislexic confusing the methane[from 'melting tundras'..with c02..thing is old buddy.YOUR NOT FOOLING ANYONE

ITS OK FOR YOU RETARDS TO CLAIM NASA/AS SOME EXPERTS
BUT WHEN WE DO AL OF A SUDDEN.ITS NOT pathetic reaLLY

nasa is obsessed with climate[the only new money its getting is satellite MEASURING THE AFFECT

BUT BY YOU THIER IDIOTS/programed/response
who the greater idiot/NASA EITHER IS Relevant/or its not

YOU/they\speak the topic/now\for selfish reason[yet again your foibles attack the man/not what he is going-to/maybe say*/in a few days.

thing is your affecting/the thinking of the few thinkers
we got on your side/who does the research/..but like you is blind to the flaws/all over your/fact\the lies/that reveal the scam/ignoring them seems to make the truth go away/you lot of paid to blog taxers/do your scummy lies well.

your beloved topic isnt relative to your cure/your measuring co2/
MEANING YOUR MEASURING METHANE/and nature as you point out is making more of it/METHANE/IN SWAMPS/and\c02/from the 3000 plus known vents

the melt-methane/[if any].because we are not
at the cooling side/of our epiliptical orbit/solar maxum
and the extra co2/due to the upcmming pole/flip\go figure..money junkies find a money fix

pay or they make your world go away
its sad your NOT LOOKING AT FACTS/but merely trying to affirm/your right[but your as wrong as can be/LIKE PRAYING\TO THE WIND GOD\the lies..have been exposed

now cause i know its beyond dispute/lets alone the wrong fix
im ovER TRYING TO REFUTE THE MINDLESS INSULTS AS YOU LOT ATTACK THE NEXT MAN/NOT WHAT..he is saying/he is better/edicated/in higher circles than any of you[and you say hes cccc rap?..

honestly..you/hollocausters
are THICKER/than the 4 thieves lying
you must see why these lies are being twisted/to bail-out the rich/yet again

look\if it stopped the real polutants/the/..maybe
but\the/lying..was it/worth/the new-tax/but\the tax..is
only/so the rich/get free cash-flows..from the poor/lied-to/hated/despised.[

USELESS-EATERS/USEFULL-IDIOTS..Join the dots.

you/have a belief-system/godless/heartless/money centerd[compulsory MONEY theft/by legislation sin taxes/the rich/dont carry the cost/yet reap the harvest/have/guilt/blog/their log

but the big chemica/big petro/they got their scientists on it/to plant red gherrings[see if you going to get the judgment/you need/you need clean hands/and the hands i see in the plot/are many..and then you say i work/for\them..

stuff the lot of ya
nasa..has more relivance than sex/and id more reliytive than the littkle girl saying they
oh who gives a ooopspoop.

men/warming is crap[or woman-global-cooling is crap/
who are you fooling but the gullible[who judge only science as god/or the science is settled\which is pure-crapp/if the science isnt in why is the nex tax fix-*in/bah

point is your meant to prove
you cant refute our disproof/so ya refute the astronutter
[i hate nasa more than you peugot/your name calling/a nASA dude/YET GLADLY TOO HIS DATA/HIS WORK/SUPPLIES..no its ratHER PATHETIC/SUCKED IN..

ok they fooled you/you pay the damm tax
it wont change nuthin/look what you changed so far/huge subsidies to solar projects/goe bust to the cost of multiple trillions/more lies to ignore.

thing is they say/pay tax/its all fixed
yes it is a fixed game/you think you got the facts?
you alone havnt been lied to?..why you got all the true facts and we the lies?

ego-bog-log
cause\itS DAMM/MEN\mankind\WE DESPISE
end ya lies/the case isnt proven

hung jury*
case unproven[reasonable doudt]
go home/we thank you\the jury/for your sincerity
but case isnt proven/all cost SHAL/falL upon the FAULSE-accusers/who lieD repeatedly/AND RAISED panic/needlessly that has further driven the poor beneath the oppressors heel.

thanks/be..to the useful/idiots
as use-less.as teats/on..bull*

<< ITS OK FOR [the believers] TO CLAIM NASA/AS SOME EXPERTS
BUT WHEN WE DO AL OF A SUDDEN.ITS NOT pathetic reaLLY>>

Yes indeed, I think if one of the characters in The Teletubbies or In the Night Garden said AGW was real, Poirot would cite them as an authoritative source --and I bet she would be the first the re-tweet it!

A skype interview with Dr Shakhova below. In relation to methane; disputing methane shows a misunderstanding of what happens when permafrost melts and how it reacts in water. The science is there, no way of challenging it. It's a bit like challenging the existence of oxygen. There are clips showing how ice containing methane can be lit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQDVr1eMLK8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BVsS6vo60Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80ooWqpCdZE

SPQR, you don't go to a Ear,Nose and Throat Surgeon to have Orthopaedic work done on your knee. The ENT Surgeon may have some knowledge about knees, but the Orthopaedic surgeon would have extra knowledge and experience necessary. In the same way you cannot expect a Biologist or a Geologist to have the same knowledge about the atmosphere as does an Atmospheric Scientist.
I'm afraid I believe the Specialists. But then, Marine Scientists are saying that climate change is happening off the East Coast of Australia as fish stocks are following warmer water South. An example of many where the work of other science specialities supports what climate scientists are saying.

Ant,

<<I'm afraid I believe the Specialists. But then, Marine Scientists are saying that climate change is happening...>>

As I might have mentioned before-- I believe in climate change too.

But I am less convinced that any climate change that happens is due to, or even largely due to,anthropogenic green house gases.

And I think many AGW believers have the same doubt which is why they always try to re-frame it as belief in climate versus belief the climate does not change--and they also -very mischievously --try to rope general pollution into their equation.

An extract from the article to which Poirot refers us:
“Since nothing in science is ever proven, apparently these individuals simply don't want NASA GISS to discuss science in their public releases or websites anymore. What specifically do they object to?”
This is just the start of the devious nonsense in the article, but it gives the tone of what Poirot is prepared to swallow, and to endorse.
The author of the article, associated with the fraudulent Skeptical Science site, has the gall to say:
The letter of course provides no examples of NASA GISS public releases or websites claiming that CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change, and of course provides zero examples of these mysterious "hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists" who disbelieve these unspecified catastrophic claims. As is always the case with these types of letters, it is all rhetoric and no substance.”

Following is a statement from a NASA site, typical of the statements put out by NASA, but the author seems to need directions to find them:
“
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. “
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Poirot has not answered the question as to her basis for fraud backing, but it is evident that it is dishonesty. The article is dismissive of the 8 astronauts signing the letter which requests NASA desist from making unproven statements on climate change, which Poirot sees as proving the lack of qualification of astronauts. Rather than the mendacity of the fraud backer who wrote the article.

SPQR, I think it would be very silly to suggest that natural climate change is not happening. Every 26,000 years the earth's axis changes.
The sun periodically has much sun spot activity which has an impact on the earth's climate, volcanoes have an impact also. Even movement of the tectonic plates over a long period has an impact.
Various emissions can be tested for, sunspot activity, has been low, and there has been no major volcanic action which would have an impact. It is known that the impact of warming created by man can trigger natural impacts. It has the ironic name of positive feedback.

The Dr Shakhova clips I provided above do acknowledge natural warming forces; but also discusses anthropogenic impacts.
Experiments show how carbon dioxide responds to light, I have provided that as a reference somewhere.
Much of the anti climate change argument comes from a political sphere; we know that politicians lie and some of their supporters carry through with the lies. Heartlands and IPA are supporters of big business and have a vested interest in carrying through with not telling the truth.
People who believe the climate is changing but not through anthropogenic means, need to think about what they can do to reduce impacts in relation to planning for the future.

Leo Lane,

"Poirot has not answered the question as to her basis for fraud backing, but it is evident that it is dishonesty..."

Hee hee!.....

the one thing never forgot.
ant says..by way/of redirection<<..clips showing
how ice/containing methane\can be lit.>>sea/floor.has/rivers\of-the-junk.[end-time/talks;of burning-water]be/afraid\very-afraid/bunga\bunga

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQDVr1eMLK8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BVsS6vo60Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80ooWqpCdZE

ant>>>compounds his ERROR*/to\the point where\EVERYstory has two sides[and].once we judged/ANYTHING*..we\became one-eyed

i think/nothing better*reveals/this inherent
human weakness*.[WE/loVE\AGREEMENT;PEACe]
yet/please\see-how..*once we love/things..we
..blind oursees/to the..;..other things.[LOVE/BLINDED]

its rumoured god.is one-eyed/LOVE-BLIND].he only sees/us via our loves
we dont notice when he 'sins'..cause we dont dare judge god

lets face it/us/hollow caust/deniers/yet its their holow cost/thats broke
man/made-warming is a secular joke
a faulse god..[and every false-god/hAS feet rooted in the dirt/lies/spin\sin-tax/that gets in.

<<..In relation to methane; disputing methane shows a misunderstanding of what happens when permafrost melts>>

mate/the area\..of the melt'..is minute/in relation/to the total combines methane emisions from worm-farms/and far less than home compost bins/or rotting food we never een ate/yet transported arround the world/frozeN/THEN DEFROSTED/PURE METHANE BMEASUABLE/IN LIGHT-YEARS/AND YOuR CRYING ABOUT A Localized/sized/-EVENT?

<<>>and how it reacts in water>>

MATEY//ICE MELT=water..99 percent the tundra=still under ice/you got a few hundred square miles/a local event

>>,,.The science is there,..>>

but its been manipulated/modeled modified/set up to fail
paid to blog bloggers speading one eyed science bling

<<>.no way of challenging it.>>
cause your one eye/wont see/your own reproof
you bought into the lie/roffle harris is a pervert

dont want to know more
but we all sinned/none of us has clean hands
we all fight our imnnerr demons/but few act it out[even fewer get bent out of shaPE/BY A LOCALISED EVENT

<<MORE/ANT-RANT> \..It's a bit like
challenging the existence of oxygen.>>

YES/IM FINALLY CONVINCED*
one-eyed/mate..why/because you judged.
now/im as one eyed/as you/yet i see from the other side
i been on these sort of rides to nowhere before/dont come knocking[on my door\//been there done that/sars/birdflue/swine=flue/come get a free shot.

fear is all they got/i hear all gore saying;
pay me aND/i stop taking about scary stuff
DO AS ALL GORE SAY/OR ELSE HE MELTS YA FRIDGE/cause you cant afford the power to run it[i stilfeekl if you got the largess[took the free solar/..your biased..its that simple

PS/i/FIXED UP..YOUR HttP*PS-MESS 2
cause/i..dont\need..hide..'your/proof'
proof/of what..eh-wot?

love*poirot*

Leo
The good astronaut says that 600 to 500 million years ago the level of CO2 was around 3000 ppm. This is probably correct he does not mention what the global temperatures were thought to be. The general understanding is that at between 700M and 500M years ago the temperature was cold enough to produce an ice age but that steadily rising CO2 levels eventually caused average global the temperatures to rise into the high 20s deg C.

The issue is complicated by the fact the sun has been steadily increasing its output. 500 million years ago the sun’s output was some 4% less that today. To make up for this short fall the CO2 level had to be in excess of 3000 ppm just in order to stop the earth from becoming a giant ice ball.

To give you a rough idea the current elevated levels of CO2 of about 40% should have roughly the same effect as increasing solar output by around 1% which is in turn is moderated by aerosols emissions reducing the warming effect by up to a half.

In fact we know from the fossil record that liquid water must have been available 3.5 billion years ago, but yet the sun’s output that far back was some 30% less than today which in theory would suggest that global temperatures should have been well below the freezing point of water. The only way we can make sense of this, is by considering the greenhouse effect of CO2.

The bottom line is the good astronaut appears to be unaware of these facts.

airs/quote<<..to give-you/a rough idea?
how rough?

<<the current*elevated levels*of CO2>
YOU LOT\ARE UNBELIEVABLE/lol\..its like\all/previous-numbers\are-gone

the current*lower-levels*..<<of\about 40%/should have\roughly the same effect/[lol]/as increasing solar\output/by around 1%>....]
[compared/to when?]

are you\saying/the suns;enregy-emmision
is constant/across time

sources-please/warmist-hollowcauster

<<which is/in turn is\moderated by aerosols emissions
reducing the warming effect by up to a half.""

funny/how with/the ozone-hole,we\were told/its going to get hot
but thank-god/its\only 40%/reduced by half[or some other stuff and unsubstantiated spin

<<.In fact we know from the fossil record>>
via fossilzed.........'snow/or fossilised co2
maybe fossilised methane/carbon dated by nasa of/course

item/4.<<that liquid water must/have been available 3.5 billion years ago''

yourpoint being/we deney/it?
want us to verfify-it?

<,,,ut yet the sun’s output/"
[of water?]

<<that far back/>;[3 billion plus years?]
<<was some 30% less/than today""
just today toady?

<<,which in theory/would suggest/that global
temperatures should\have been well below/the freezing point of water.""

OH SO 40 PERCENT MORE WATERLESS ICE?

<<,,The only way we can make sense of this,
is by considering the greenhouse effect of CO2.""

RIGHT/GOT-YA
THATS WHY IT READS LIKE NONSENSE/its me/not you
fossilized water-ice/methaneyes pleastwo cones full*
it still sounds like bULL/OR AS Tony says/its strange greenie cccrap

do greenies poop in the wood
of course/let that be understood
greenies neEd eat masive vego meals/all\that wasted food put into compost
and compost makes methane.go grow ya own/methane
its only 40 times worse than c02/per unit[worse is that greenouse polutant/used to clean solar cells.............

sell outs sold us out
they sell solar power for up to 55 cents
thats criminal/no other word for it.........................\

who the bigger criminals?
http://www.independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/who-owns-corporate-australia,5033

Due/to\the complex-nature\of/the legal structuresof shareholders and ways \that the various shareholders/work together\it is virtually impossible/to determine\who really controls the banks.[HSBC* JP Morgan/and Citibank]along with many other European and US banks as their\major shareholders.

often countered/by stating that HSBC,J.P.Morgan and Citibank\are only investing/;on behalf of small investors./What is of issue here is control\and the prerogative/of the funds\to appoint a director to the board of their choice,/*not the investors.

These figures/are also\consistent-with a recent worldwide study showing\that most/of the-world's/company\equity-is controlled\by no more than 25 companies,/of which\many of/these companies\have equity in/Australian-banks]

abc is doing a puff piece
tomorrow i will use the transcript
to reveal the gentle lies[like a 'solar powerd/stadium[at night/using power from the grid[at night/only payed for by solar credits/not solar powerd/solar power subsidised oal fired night time powers

its just nsane wat hing these fools
it began with info gen/saying they powr more than half of canberra
but watch how confued it was got to that number[ie they show 20 windmills/mention 10 or so OTHER SITES/THEN SAY WE INOGINS POWER 2.3RDS CANBERRS [IE IN TOTO/NOT JUST TE 20 TURBINES SEEN

ANOTHER I RECALL A GUY USES COMPUTERS TO SELL SOLAR FROM SATILITE[IE ITS AL BUSNIESS INTSTS LOBBYING VIA THE ABC

ITS PATHETI

YEAH 20 PERCENT ReNEWABLE AND SCrew te cost
we need pay tripple /no WORRIES

OH NO NOW W GOING To power las vagus/via melted salt
yeah heating salt great way to heat the earth
just istening to the spin

clean enercy/whats with that
dirty energy/IS OUR COMPETITOR
THE MORAL SINS OF THE SPIN/;LIES
yeah its the lies i really dispise

how can 4 cents a kilowaat/from coal
offset 55 cents buy back when the sun shines
the rest of the rtime ya using coal/where is yur shame

yur solar credit/is stealing 10 fold the polution by the cot advantage to the colluders

oh here we go shutting down big coal
the stain/upon your very soul

oh poop now wind solar are pushing down the price of electricity?

screw you lying scum

The output of the sun over periods of thousands of years is remarkably constant but over billions of years there has been a big increase in output. The reason is simple as hydrogen is converted to helium the density increases and this speeds up the rate hydrogen is consumed until eventually most of the hydrogen is gone and things go pear shaped.

For our skeptical friends
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/09/claim-faint-young-paradox-solved/

Especially for you OUG
http://creation.com/young-sun-paradox

I use these links to support my case re my last post

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~infocom/The%20Website/evolution.html

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_1997_big.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/600px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/study-finds-evidence-global-methane-release-about-600-million-years-ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

hot-air/your unbelievably thick
clearly your a computer program/auto reply
that then generATES random giberish/while your creator/master controler sits beside you wathing your machinations giggling insanely

ok matethe methane melting/and this 2050 dooms day/now we are going back fowards billons of years?

.mate your using the old version/of this/that writes lying papers[only its now writing lying bloggers/which is great/cause they dont get upset/and keep posting irrelivant crap/till al'deniers l the'just/ warmist give up

im ripping great chunks OF THE GRAND-SCAM*tomorra
THE BIGGEST THING IS SELF SUFFICINCY TRUE COSTS AND night time power storage

coal costs 4 cents
solar/wind is free
how come im paying 24 cents?

its not cheaper for me
but for them with whole rooves full of solar cells/reaping in 5000
in datlight powers/to use 9000 dollars of powr at night off the grid and off dirty coal

for freak/sake microsoft claims 100 percent off the grid[or 100 percent solar/but te lie is off the grid/tomorrows transcript wil reveal.they are turning sssshit/[bio-solids]..into methane[and storing tHe methane/not the power but the neat timming of it/joins the two into a neaT soft kill lie

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/07/07/4038488.htm

no/transcript
The Crescent Dunes\solar thermal power plant located near Tonopah, Nevada. Once completed, it will power up to 75,000 homes during peak electricity periods. www.solarreserve.com

its/funny/solar/during peak?yet night falls during peak[look at the sunset shot/in the propaganda clip/solar cells sleeping at nightfall.

its/the claim=75,000 homes/cause not one home[is fully 'suppLIED'/IE\LIE[why say once completed?/why not say curently this/future that/cause its not serving anything/usefull but cash flow

damm i want to use their own words/lies

The price of power\With Australian electricity prices amongst the highest in the world, more and more households are going solar. The big power companies say the Renewable Energy Target is undermining their businesses and they want it wound back. The federal government agrees, so who is to blame for the high price of power?

those expecting govt to rebuild/the whoLe power generaTion network

Renewable energy target:*Economic modelling shows
household bills to rise in short term,/drop long term
*Economic modelling[please/note/the ecomomists ARE/pushing this

the renewable energy target(RET)review has found that keeping the clean energy scheme would result in lower household bills over the longer term.

yes cheaper tomorrow/lol
untill inflation cycle kicks-in
[we got/real incReaees today/
besides/tomorrow*never comes]

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling
http://patriotrising.com/2014/07/07/government-data-show-u-s-decade-long-cooling/

NSW energy price rises/ABC RuralThere have been massive rises in the cost of energy in New South Wales. From mid-2007 onwards, electricity has risen more than 100 per cent...[70%/IN\5-YEARS]

Most of that rise has been due to the cost of the network, the poles and wires,[rubbish[watch the vidio/note the scene/where this lie is spoken/'infastructure=solar cells and wind,ills/and gold plating to cater/to the energy peaks/when solar overloads\into te system/then the reverse as the coal/system powers up 100 percent/at night

Utilities move to kick rooftop solar off the grid | Renew Economy | 27 Jun 2014 - Utilities in Queensland are looking to limit and even stop households exporting excess electricity back into the grid from their rooftop solar panels, in a move that other Australian network operators are expected to follow - even if it does have the potential to accelerate grid defections and the so called "death spiral".

warmair, just out of curiosity I went to the site you recommended to OUG, it was very funny to say the least.
I had a look at this article...http://creation.com/a-165-million-year-surprise

The article claims to invalidate science, the planet is but 6,000 years old. Hot springs preserved creatures and shells, and Noah's flood put sediment over creatures presumably creating fossils.
It must be the case that dinosaurs perished at the time of the flood.
Why weren't dinosaurs taken on board the Ark Noah had built?
Many creatures missed the boat!!

Once the flood had abated how did creatures end up on the Galapagos Islands or Australia? Hell, you could write a book about all the questions raised.

The logic of Creationists just doesn't make sense; yet, people with these notions are against the view of anthropogenic climate change.

Ant
All good bible students know that the flood started at 1656 AM. Therefore the lizards were too cold to get on the ark.

http://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/

OH DEAR ANT/from/your mates/link

ITS PATHETIC RATHER THAN SAD
YOU MISSED THE WHOLE MYSTERY /GIST OF THE PIECE
clue read the 3 parragraphs/undEr the 5 word heading
http://creation.com/a-165-million-year-surprise
PLUS THE REFERANCED NOTES

dumb ant's
as pathetic as priest/kiddie joke
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=priest+ant+boy+joke

they are easy /deceived and fortunately easy amused

but science/its just gobbildy gook/to ants
and they blother on about makings creation/based on a throwawy line/right at the end.

hats the sad part
he read all the amasing content/miracle/to point our nonsense/unrelated tO THE INFO/HE THINKS HE REFUTES
lol/but mate its ya mates link/..what point was he making?
he didnt read it/he just se it up for you[the great avantage of computers blogging.

ONE SERVES UP
THE NEXT REPLY

Warmair,

So Noah's Flood occurred in Winter, 1656 AM ? Perhaps late Winter, to give reptiles time to really cool down. Say August ?

So the old 40-days-etc. at sea would place the landing on Mt Ararat in mid- to late September ? Not a good time of the year, early Spring, to hunt around for all manner of foodstuffs for hundreds of thousands of animals, and their many offspring. Perhaps many died trying to get back to their original habitats, South America, southern Africa, Australia, etc., leaving their bones to be discovered four thousand or so years later, dispersed in rings around Mt Ararat in ever-decreasing quantities ?

Isn't rubbish fascinating ?

Joe

The other possibility is they ate them, apparently dinosaurs taste like chicken.

Which for some silly reason reminds of the recipe for Cockatoo. Boil in pot with stone and cook until stone is soft, throw away the cockatoo and eat the stone.

ET'tu..joe?
<<..Isn't rubbish fascinating ?

Joe>>
no/i like..facts~skip/the spin

anyhow..found/the\transCRIPT/
FROM LAST\NIGHTS..FOUR-CORNERS

the promised\quotes/

<<.IVOR FRISCHKNECHT, CEO, AUSTRALIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY AGENCY:..The main reason*..[lol]..for the increase in electricity prices..*is the cost*..of networks.>>

these/*green-networks*/
getting/contractual licence./avantages/terms
upfront/grants-..to steal/us\blind..!

ITS/..odious/debt*
[treason/..plus/proceeds of crime]

<<.So network infrastructure>>[this/GREEN/.NET-WORKING/..roof-furnature/INFASTRUCTURE]

IVOR*8..network/infastructure..<<>.....has been added.*to..[pretty dramatically/.in the last five years..and*..*that is roughly*half*..of your total electricity bill today*..goes to pay for>>

green/sub-*networks
half/the bill.goes to building/alt/energy grid./netWORKS*

<<>.that carry*electricity..TO*\..and/*from the generators to your house/or business.>>

STEPHEN LONG:/As energy\prices soared, for the first time ever,..electricity-consumption went backwards...the problem..is partly of the industry's*own making,..>>

<<.*the fall/in consumption.has driven a backlash\*/against renewable energy.>>

hence/this/puff-piece*

<<.Incumbent..*[green/renewable]...power companies are saying,..why build more capacity when there's already/oversupply?>

excpt/for..when solar sleeps
and\you creeps steal..it back[but not/at..the extra rate][at night/we all*are/on the grid].our grid/not yours/your collecting rent*from our pockets/free-rides.

MATTHEW WARREN,.CEO, ENERGY SUPPLY ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA:..The simple/reality is the RET,..[the Renewable Energy Target.]as designed\..was designed/*to fill*~*anticipated growth..*~in the market*..>>

that/never*came
such/clever*GREEN\lobby/MARKETEERS

<<.and the market*conditions\*/have changed.>>

*THANK-GOD/.OR WE/all\WOULD/BE PAYING-DOUBLE/*AGAIN;'

STEPHEN LONG:.Matthew Warren\/is chief executive\of the Energy Supply Association.

MATTHEW WARREN:..We've seen[lol]..an.*ever accelerating*decline in demand/since 2009>>

LOL
it/SEEM$..\that/..all-THE BIG*USERS
GET BIG~FAT REFUND*S/plus/free-powers

<<>. and so/what's meant that,>>

NOTICE/THE DElAY
HERE..IS WHY

<<>.what was 20 per cent...is now looking\more like 25, 28, 29 per cent,..and that's/a much bigger target.>>

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/07/07/4038488.htm

cause/we bet\we could reap-in/much more money/<<.Forty-one-thousand*gigawatt hours from large scale schemes..>.by now/

soon no-one will be paying...nuthin
GREENIE/MERCHAMNDISERS/GOT..TOO GREEDY*

STEPHEN-LONG:..And still\tiny..by world standards.

It costs..[half-of;]..a lot*..
to build/a plant...like this,>>

20/of/which\supply../HALF/of\CANBERRAS/NEEDS>>

<<..and that..does feed/into electricity prices,>>
YES/HALF/..*NOT 3%/.see/script.

<<..but in/the\medium term,/>>

IE/ONE-DAY
[NOT anyday/..lol..soon

<<..the energy..will/.[may?]..be..cheaper>..

BUT\,,WE BEEN/WRONG..;BEFORE*

<<>..SIMON CORBELL:..The economics*..is a no\brainer/and/it also drives down*..the cost of electricity/more generally..in the market>>

one/day..lol

<<>.because,..often,..at times/of peak demand,>>

sunset.hot/cold\wet/coudy-says

<<>> renewables/is..{?}..the cheapest source of energy/into the electricity market>>?

jerks/55/cents;buy-back?
sold for half-price?..huh?

QUOTE/SOURCE
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/07/07/4038488.htm

sTEPHEN/LONG:<<..20 per/cent..Renewable\Energy*Target,?..*that's not*..in fact*what*..the\legislation says.

The law*/calls*for\a fixed*amount*
of electricity/to come*/from renewable.sources\by 2020.>>

key*..<<..Forty-one-thousand*gigawatt hours
*from..*large scale**schemes...>>..*LARGE_SCALE*..

bought/..\ANNUALLY/..[AT/55\CENTS/KILO*.WHAT?..[=]lotsa/cash-flow\income-streaming..*READ*.HUGE/subsidized/SOLAR/+\WIND-FARMS/reaping..the-ill..wind...in-cash.

<<..At-least 4,000\gigawatt-hours
from small-scale\renewable energy\schemes,[such\as roof-top/solar.>>

SO/THEIR..MATES/GET..TEN*FOLD
MORE/THAN/the\SELL-OUTS/GOT

HERE/IS..*a subsidized*reseller/talking*big

<<..MILES GEORGE,*MD,\INFIGEN ENERGY:..So\there'Is
90 turbines here*,/[including..the Capital\and Woodlawn wind farms.]

STEPHEN LONG:..Miles George/is\managing director-of the company, which operates..*24/renewable power-plants *-

[*six of\them.in Australia.

(STEPHAN/to\MILES GEORGE);How much/power..does that>>..
IE [THE]..24 FARMS/..<<<,generate?

<MILES GEORGE:..It's\enough power
to power\about half.the houses\in Canberra.>>

24 PLANTS..[how many/billions-to build
HOW MUCH GOVT..;SUBSIDY*[50/50?]

PLUS/nice*fat/CONTRACTED/buy*back price/
in cash*each month.

then apple.[lol].100%[solar/]..Not\off/*the grid
so that's/a lie/too..[2typical]

<<..The computing*power/needed-to process\all that\content>>[24/7]...shared...on the web.and on mobile devices/is-a massive drain on electricity.

The power/NETWORK/demands/have led to\accusations..that/technology/companies/TOO\have a "dirty cloud"..

<<..the solution:.....a vast solar farm,..generating/..167 million kilowatt/hours\of GREEN/SYSTEM\power..Enough/to make*Apple's data center 100/per cent powered..>>

wrong...[paid/for/..

<<..by renewable energy.>>
too/sneaky/

but-wait/more*
watch/the clever/joinder

<<.It's the\largest solar-farm\in the United-States\not owned\by a power utility..and it's supplemented*by\fuel-cells that store electricity *...[wait]...generated*..from biomass.>>..

gas/stored/at-best/..not electricity

the bowls/cub[small/scale/solar/<<..STEPHEN LONG:edit/.. in the face of rocketing electricity bills/he convinced\the board to have 360 solar panels.......installed on\the roof\of the bowlo'.

PAT EGAN:Yeah\you...can see\a good view\of them
there now;..they are\in banks/of 10...times..36

edited/..<<I was\trying to\find ways
to save costs.....And increase./our revenue.*>>

[edit]

<<....So that\was a month's power bill?

PAT EGAN:Yeah.

STEPHEN LONG:.Ten thousand bucks\or close enough

PAT EGAN:\And this\one's $4,891.

STEPHEN LONG:..That's a huge saving.>>..

and guess who*is paying/for-it?

YES/IT-IS/YOU.
and/thats..*small-scale*]

\THE SAME\greedy-FOOLS/boozers/THAT BOUGHT/300 SOLAR CELLS/TO PUT ON
their roof\and/guess what/..it gets worse\too many scamers

<<Those city-facilities\are now
*powered about 97,98 per\cent\by solar.>>

not/powered/paid-for*
[huge/difference.

<<......What's really\driven-up power\prices
has been..a massive investment\in/the network*:>>

NETWORK*
IE/THE/GREEN-SOLAR/WIND-networks-
recall/the net*work/needing/*40 megahellofalots/of energy/by 2020!

they blame/or call it/ the poles\and wires,.
[in/reality/spent/building the*new-green/networks}

<<.. the infrastructure.>
the green/infrastructure\plus ports gas pipelines/and turbines...solar*panels..[to offset/cost]

<<..And,as/it turns out,..*much of\that investment..was*unnecessary>>

JOHN GRIMES:.They got-the/forecast..*wrong.

<<.Power prices*are going up\because[green*]power companies/have
over invested in the..[green]network and\those*companies\get a guaranteed*return*..on their investment,

-*guaranteed/by the\Government.>>[ie/your/power-bill*

all-paid/4
paid/by/idiots/like-us.

e/damm-post
420/wurds..OH DEAR/seems that*ant~rant..went mute[toocute]
the last refuge..of warmist-frauds/run/..FLEE/FLEA..and \OR/EXPLAIN.[CORRECT-EVEN]

as\for...the hot-air\head/..well enough said
now-the import of.."4 corner sell-out/to the greenish/explouitist/lobby/..is revealed/[the treasoners will seek\to have it concealed/so leTS clarify\the main points.

please note..that science/scientists\is past*
now its.*economists selling it~/~to back-up\a new gl0bal-currency called..'DRAWING -RIGHTS'..[WHICH IS\JUST ANOTHER..[FIAT]one-world-currency/[not money]..FEDERAL-reserve/TYPE MONEY*CREATION/BYdebt-COMPOUNDING/INFLATION\THEFTSYSTE../THAT CREATES\ODIOUS-DEBT*on/paper.owed/to./the dead/designed\to/enslave/the..living..into servitude/to\banker-ursury-ists.

SEE how..'germmany/china/japs2\
subsidized/the polluting\building`of theSe\things*[PRODUCT]
plus\lent the money~to payL/for alL/*these SCAM$/Scemes..[like*free light-bulbs[THEN/MANDATED-COMSUMERISM]

and/things~ike free s/SUBSIDIZED/BORROWED/MONIES;.Solar sell/thats where-tHe\STATE~debt..[QLD;ALONE].of 85 billion/became hellISH/PUNITIVE/ODIOUS*

see how/bad this-is/~govt is*obligated/contractualy:.to buy 40 gaziLLION UNITS\OF SUNLIGHT/at 55 cents~a watt\every-year/til-the*end/of-time~[@55CENTS?]

i mean\thats/signed*sealed
DELIVERD/TILL-THE/END~OF*TIME.
[lol..under the lie*of reducing our/4*cents'aB-use?

but/see tHe joke/as we reduce*our use/the\4*cent~ammount/we are contracted/~to buy~/remains*the same/~and here-is*the clever\bit/
once~we reduce~our need[to 40/trillion watts/at 55 cents].thats the base~price/..*its bought aT~[bought~FOR4\ALL OF US]

BUT \will/power double/in_4 years*../then
/in another~4 years..LOL..we will~/ALl\-be paying double;again..

[see how\the buy~back/price\has/SET....THE future~sell price/
and-as every whatt?//is/will\was bought..for 55 cents/..it cannot\be-sold*..for 55 cents/

THUS*\by 2025/IT WILL\MUST*..BE ONE
DOLLAR\AND/10 CENTS.[UNLESS/THE/PRICE-/HOCKEY~STICKS

please see~that accountants
[sorry economists;sold-us..aN*ENRON*~pyramid scam

look at\the desk-jokies planing\
THEN/PLAYING~out the enron*end play~SCAM/gameplan.

we had.24/7 power for 4 cents
now we got/25 cent~power/govt buys~Tat 55 cents

SOME CLEVER ACCOUTNING/science/by accountant[changed-numbers;accountant/finer~prints..and these/scumy~scamming economists/to give ya a clue;..they screwed you2.[recall mondays qand a~../*.[4 economists:/cue?

[the big-guns
plus al gore/too\its just\too damm*clever

wakeup/
now ya know\itS TIME
~TO FIX~THAT..YOU.WARMISts..stuffed right-up

here is~the clue/why it was done to you
now herE Is the story/all written-Out for you
in many links/but think/your loony loBby made this mes

nowplease\use~the same passion/
ending the lies/made by\creative accounting

i out*lined/a few points
its time you warmists starteD\to wake~each*other-up
yes and loose ya smugness

[recall you fools settled\for only 10 percent
of the take;CAKE.[a few elites got 90/pecent
[i mean ARE\EVEN NOW/REAPING IN 90%..[OF HALF-YA POWER/BILL]

unLess your one\getTing cash back
you greedy..liars made me sick

how to repair the damage/your debt/to the imf has made/so 20.DEAD CORPERATE/multinationals can take\ya houses:make you work/for ALCHEMICAL PINK OOOZE.

[GOOGLE-IT]..
And THEN/MAKE-YOu/beg/and work to pay/the
your/new\banker landord;overlord/their tax free govt~subsidised rent

OH DEAR EXTREEME CHRISTINE DOING THE GRIST MILLS
she now Is wearing glasses to hide the growfeet[even some botox]
but there she is dressed up to sell it.sell what?..sell the last gasp

trying to rally the troops/for monday
and the greens role in this cant be understated
one second its kill the deal/next its saying our whole attention should be focussed on animal farmng.

the two poINTS DONT MEET
but there ya go recall that 3 percent lie[when its really fifty percent]
john huesoon quoted the much debuted true cost of solar=3 percent
the same lying spin/hes rich enough to be snide oh where is abc fact check

the facts are system upgrades = solar system upgrades [ie making the green-grid]

what they expected was give away free cardon credit
[to the big poluters]..then add a govt top up of 50 percent

green=obscene/its been highjacked years ago [heck i know people died]
the basic isea is keep[ pushing the lie

3 percent=network building[ie 4 billion for ya mate to build a solsr farm selling power at ten times the price and your shared income is guaranteed/and if the power demand keeps falling it will be nearer to 40 percent[already they admit 29]

wake up you lobbiets
one more time/only this time know your selling lies

this clever thing was when someone tried to get too clever
clever circulated a memo/and some one maaged to issue another [with clever mob thinking it their memo

but at the last moment that monetarists secertary found it

he and clive shall go far
and what did abc want to talk about
3 million/payments left in a chinese fund

anyhow im sick of lying scum/the spin is the sin
[how come no rbuttal?/come-on ant brain;explain

come on off ya chair warm air
come enter the lair..why so many lies?

On 6 July warmair, you stated:“The bottom line is the good astronaut appears to be unaware of these facts.”

What you have raised, should it constitute fact, is not relevant to his statement. The issue is the dishonesty of the AGW assertion.

Cunningham says this about the letter to NASA which he and his group signed as ex-NASA personnel:
“We developed a letter to NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and obtained signatures from seven Apollo astronauts, several former Headquarters managers and Center directors, and 40 former management-level technical specialists. We asked that he restrain NASA from including unproven claims in public releases and on websites. Statements by NASA that man-made carbon dioxide was having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. It is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is inconsistent with NASA’s history of conducting an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. They should be emphasizing to the media that human- caused global warming is a hypothesis, not a scientific fact.
And the second letter?
Well, NASA Chief Scientist, Dr. Waleed Abdalati, testified at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing that the sea level was projected to rise between 0.2 meters and 2 meters within the next 87 years. This was based upon the warmest temperature scenarios, derived of course, from highly theoretical computer models.
A group of NASA retirees responded with another letter charging that NASA in general, and GISS in particular, has failed to objectively assess all available data on climate change, while relying too heavily upon complex climate models that have not succeeded in predicting climate. The letter specifically asked that GISS, then headed by James Hansen, not incorporate unproven remarks in public releases and websites.
Thankfully, James Hansen has since resigned. He was an embarrassment and disgrace to the agency.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/06/a-conversation-with-apollo-astronaut-walter-cunningham-about-a-vital-need-to-restore-climate-science-integrity/
You really should make an attempt to be relevant, warmair.

Hi Leo,

On sea-level rise, I'm a bit concerned about that SBS advert, in which waves are seen slopping over mangroves - horrors ! obvious sea-level rise !

Well, not really - waves would slop over mangroves every day around the world even if the sea-level was falling, probably right at this moment. A really lazy, scare-mongering advert. SBD can do better.

Joe

Well regardless of what your good astronaut believes this is what NASA says:-

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

It is sad really that, what has been well understood since before the the Wright brothers first flight in an aircraft, is being disputed by anyone.

Thanks, warmair, for drawing our attention to the fact that although the climate fraud Hansen, has retired, NASA continues to lie about AGW. Apparently, Hansen has been replaced by Gavin Schmidt, part of the fraud-backing infestation centred on Realclimate, the Michael Mann site.
Despite the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, and its failure to cause warming for nearly 18 years, you do not want the “science” questioned, because it is so old, even though it is obviously wrong. It is vital to the fraud-backer faith, to pretend that they have science to back their baseless assertions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Frankly Leo I have no idea why you are so determined to deny climate change. Its not just NASA that thinks climate change is happening it is every scientific body from every country bar one. On top of that most of the worlds largest companies agree as well.

http://www.bhpbilliton.com/home/society/ourperspective/Pages/Climate-Change.aspx

http://www.riotinto.com/documents/ReportsPublications/corpPub_ClimatePosition.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/08/lloyds-insurer-account-climate-change-extreme-weather-losses

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/05/20/some-companies-adjusting-stronger-storms-and-severe-weather/wgsC3tV105MOdAQIU7J0YI/story.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/01/22/climate-change-is-here-how-companies-are-preparing-for-it/

http://www.dow.com/sustainability/goals/climate.ht

dear warm c02 breather

you rote..<<>.Its not\just NASA>>

a govt agency\that costs a hammer$=in hundreds of dollrs?
the same natzie'S/ROCKETERS..:././forgiven their..war-crimes in the 3 rd reicke/SO USA\COULD INSTANTLY GET..A ROCKETRY INDUSTRY?

dependant\on accurate weather/for launching?
not telling what The..'climate' wilL be doing\in 30 years/but tomorrow..at the launch/or nexT-monday week/window

[its/all hot air]
C02 EX HALER[WHEN/C02~LIMITS/COME-TO ZERO[STOP/BREATHING-OR/ELSE~!

but ignore/that airospace/is big money
built by natzie$

<<>.that thinks[IS-PAID/TO;THINK]climate change is happening>>

and have raped plenty\of the 40 bilion spent on buying the reSeAchers-off

<<>.. it is every scientific[LOL]..body
LOL..*from every*country
LOL..*bar one.>>

mate every ScienCe body..LOL./[is a big call]
norh korea as i recall say kimelson makes the climate/mate

why you greenies so love
to sex up..[sorry egzadgurate..sorry again
why~DO~you greenies so easilly lie?

<<..On top of that>>lie/\<<..most *>>
lol..not~all?..<<..of the worlds-*largest companies\agree as well.>>

yes so..do most of the economists/bankers/investers/suppliers..

dont that make ya think?
why should all them rich business/want
the extra..\lol/..clean-green/fat-free/diet_eco*business..[as usual~!*

?..lol,,or want..[sek/loby\lie/spin..*to put themselves
lol..*out of business..lol..*[to buy a better busneswith/free-green*CREDITS*$$$$$s

mate/[its about moneY
SORRY/CREDIT..\VERSUS/..DISS-CREDIT

y?
they long wanted an enegy curency[see electro]
ans a weightless[LOL]....invisable gas..LOL..taxed by the ton*
makes perfect sense..for economistsAND BIGGER BUSINESS/once ya factor in the reducing*O'supply'F DISPENSATIONS,..

and reduced supply means shortage/
LOL..EXCLUSIVE LICENCE/TO POLUTE/WHAT BUSINESScould refuse?

in an expanding universe
LES/POLUTION-PERMIT$$$..each year
plus/nice-buy-back/and scamers/applenty

but the last thing they expected was we would simply reduce ur usage by one quarter/but green credit power supply is mandated to a fixed 20 hellof alot of free subsidy cash buy back/to matES/IE THE BIG SYSTEMS NEEDING BIG MONEY TO GET THE GOVT BIG CASH/PLUS ENDLESS CASH FLOW

OF COURSE BIG BUSINESS LOVE IT
ITS IN BUSINESS TO BUiLD SYSTEMS THAT TRIPPLE THE PRICE OF POWER
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html
AND rig everything in a scam that usualy ends in grat depressions
once a disaster arives/and busts up some solar systems with hail
or a reverse powers surge shorts out the system

at night we all use xcoal
so drop ya smug guilt trips
the sky isnt falling the ice isnt melting its cooling not waming and powEr use has dropped by one quarter/the sceme/scam..holds little water.

I am sure that you believe you are clever, warmair, using the expression as defined by IPCC to make the fraudulent assertion of human caused climate change. Neither you, nor the mendacious IPCC or any other entity, have any scientific basis to assert any measurable human caused effect on climate. Climate change in the normal definition of the English words, is occurring. Climate change, as fraudulently defined by the IPCC is not occurring.
As to the fraudulent assertions by scientific bodies that human caused climate change is occurring, we need a Royal Commission to ascertain by whom and by what means such statements are procured, from the otherwise reputable bodies. In the meantime, only dishonest people,. like yourself, will rely on them.

There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Your assertion is baseless and fraudulent.

Leo the bottom line is you have been seriously misled by others, and it is simply sad that you have been taken in by a load of charlatans. I and others have provided you with all the information you need to confirm that AGW is a fact. Claiming it is a fraud as you do in all your posts, is both insulting to the scientists and just plain wrong.

Thanks, warmair, I take that as confirmation that you have no science to justify your position, and persist with it despite being well aware that it is fraudulent.

If scientists who are dishonest enough to support fraud, feel insulted when they are exposed as fraudulent, then it is inappropriate. They should feel shame.

You make the baseless statement that I have been misled. Show me the science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, or acknowledge the fact that you are attempting to mislead, by backing the baseless fraud of AGW.

The problem Leo is I am well aware that AGW it is not fraudulent,end of story.

We could continue with I am right your wrong, but I think this thread has reached its use by date.

Where is OUG when you need him to end a thread ?

We know that you have no scientific basis, warmair, but only you can tell us whether your belief is sustained by ignorance, stupidity or dishonesty. You have told us you are not stupid or ignorant, so you are precluded from denying dishonesty, the only other possible basis for your support of AGW .Goodbye, warmair.

We have established that the support for AGW by warmair, and by Poirot, arose from dishonesty. There is certainly no basis in science for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.
Poirot endorsed her classification as dishonest with the vacuous comment, “hee hee”. That is understandable. She is of the left, and dishonesty is the sine qua non of the Left.
As a group primate, she seeks approval of her group, so being designated “dishonest” gains the approval of a lefty group.

We still have ant supporting the fraud, and it is not clear whether that is through dishonesty or stupidity. She disdains science, and quotes fire-fighters, tourist pamphlets the inuit, and the pseudoscience of the NCA, in support of her nonsense.

It is a great day, today. Abbott has despatched the Carbon Tax, just as he promised.