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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > An important essay by Richard Lindzen > Comments

An important essay by Richard Lindzen : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 26/10/2018

Of course, the climate system is driven by the sun, but even if the solar forcing were constant, the climate would still vary.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
The 97% are not a scientists but rogues. Idiot politicians are listening to the rogues, impoverishing the country. Science has been dragged into disrepute by the rogues and politicians, and the scientists who could save their discipline are gagged or ignored by the the media.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 26 October 2018 9:56:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I would agree with your statement about apparent sea level changes being largely due to tectonic shift etcetera, particularly Pacific islands that sit on fault lines, the reason why it hasn't been effected greatly by melting sea ice is due to Archimede's principle. If all the sea ice around the world melted, there would be no significant sea level rise. That would only be effected when ice supported by land melted.

However, if you care to take trip into the foothills of the Himalayas you will find that over the past twenty or so years, levels of glaciers have been falling at a considerable rate. The consequence of this is that those people living downstream above any dams, are finding that their river flows have also diminished.

Likewise, a trip across the Tundra in Siberia also reveals considerable melting with the liberation of measurable increases in methane.

You don't need to be a scientist to realise that something is happening, and only a fool with his head in the sand (or a politician) would not want to do something about stopping it. The rate of change is many times greater than what might be attributed to natural cycles.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 26 October 2018 10:09:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, the climate is driven by the sun. When it waxes the joint heats up. when it wanes, as it has done since the mid-seventies, (NASA) the joint cools, sometimes to the point of an ice age!

Currently, we're told, that CO2 levels are not only at record levels but up there in uncharted territory!? Moreover, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas involved, but methane as well and, we're also informed, at least 21 times more efficacious as a greenhouse gas than CO2. And a permafrost that now melts, releasing tons and tons more of it!

Most of the science you quoted seems at first reading, good. But one needs to take issue with a few of your claims and conclusions. The first is that 97%of scientists are bogus? Or their peer-reviewed claims are?

And that all global warming is the product of natural events, time and tide, etc-etc. And reads as if taken from the coal lobby handbook.

I don't know what your problem is Don? Save, if you were forced to relocate a little further west and without the benefit of for you, affordable air conditioning? Your essays would look startlingly different?

You all have a nice day now, y'hear.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 26 October 2018 10:26:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>our leaders are afraid to differ, and proceed, lemming-like, to plan for the suicide of industrial society.

Unfortunately many people on this forum are (like Don Aitkin and even many of our politicians) idiotic enough to believe this neocon lie.

And rather than challenging this delusion, they create others. Many cherry pick data to support the ridiculous conclusion that global warming has stopped. Every time they learn something about how the atmosphere interacts with infrared radiation, they assume it's something the climatologists (who've actually known about it for decades) are ignorant of. They seek to hold climate scientists accountable for claims non-scientists made. Need I go on?

We know the mechanism by which increased CO2 levels warm the planet. We know CO2 levels and temperatures have been increasing.Yet somehow people retain enough cognitive dissonance to claim the two are unconnected.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 26 October 2018 12:36:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan, don't be so polite, it isn't cognitive dissonance, it it is just plain blood stupidity.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 26 October 2018 12:43:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee Don, you want us to believe that the science is on your side and you've carefully considered the scientific data and in the second paragraph you subtract 2018 from 1960 and get seventy years. You couldn't even copy the text of the speech where Lindzen says 60 years.

Several of the things Lindzen says are worth listening to. Nobody knows how to measure the increasing number of droughts and the increased intensity of hurricanes that global warming logically would cause. We need to keep looking closely at this. But this conclusion is way over the top:

An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays.

The "overturn of industrial civilization." Please. The IPCC recommends spending 2.5% of Global GDP. Second rusting wind farms. Even if there is no global warming if wind farms are cheap and clean and save coal which is non-renewable there is value in them. The whole thing seems to be written to seek attention rather than further scientific knowledge.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

Lindzen criticizes cherry picking data and then does his own regarding Greenland ice sheets.

The 97% is hard to nail down but there is clearly a significant consensus among climate scientists. The way you have phrased it indicates that there is no consensus at all.

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

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#5de954cd1157
Posted by ericc, Friday, 26 October 2018 12:57:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The doyen of atmospheric climate change is Republican supporter Kerry Emmanuel. He believes Lindzen is wrong:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

Dr Joe Romm, Physicist, quotes Dr Trenberth as saying about a paper written by Lindzen and Choi as .. "The flaws in Lindzen-Choi paper “have all the appearance of the authors having contrived to get the answer they got.”"
Dr Trenberth is an award winning scientist.

http://thinkprogress.org/lindzen-debunked-again-new-scientific-study-finds-his-paper-downplaying-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6/

Also, a number of other studies via Dr Romm:

http://thinkprogress.org/science-stunner-clouds-appear-to-be-big-bad-player-in-global-warming-an-amplifying-feedback-sorry-8035ced96062/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/climate-nexus/lindzen-cites-debunked-science_b_6812356.html
Posted by ant, Friday, 26 October 2018 1:28:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good effort Don, but as you can see, there are a hell of a lot of lemmings in this world, & a lot of them contribute here. I do find it intriguing that some of them who appear to be bright enough to understand the fraud, either still don't, or for ideological reasons refuse to.

I still can't understand how you, with your attitude to the fraud, managed to survive in academia.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 26 October 2018 1:56:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CX4 calling control tower...CX4 calling control tower ...standing by.
Control tower back to to CX4...wind south east...ceiling 1200...all clear.

OK...this is Hop Harrigan coming in.....Rrrrrrrrrr.

This episode.

Hop has total control of global warming by buzzing endlessly around in the sky, cooling things down with his big propeller.
Meanwhile, on the ground, Tank collects excess rainwater from super hurricanes and Prop props up this years bumper crop of tomatoes, and bottles excess Co2 for storage, needed for the coming ice age!
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 26 October 2018 3:02:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whoops...

DiverDan (alias NNN).

Sorry Al.
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 26 October 2018 3:11:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Folks, the majority of us do not understand the science re climate change. https://tgrule.com/2018/10/23/climate-research-in-the-ipcc-wonderland/
Posted by Newfie, Friday, 26 October 2018 4:07:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As an analogy, should a Paediatrician state that children should not be immunised, other Paediatricians and Health workers would dispute the negative immunisation view. Measles as an adult can be a horrific disease if not vaccinated against, polio is no longer a health problem.
Likewise, Lindzen has been repudiated by his peers as shown by the number of references quoted above, more are available.

Whatever happened to 1998, which in the past was a datum point used by deniers?

Newfie

Anthony Watt, from WUWT has been proven wrong many times. Blog sites are generally not the best reference unless they have hyperlinks to peer reviewed science.
Posted by ant, Friday, 26 October 2018 5:29:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Don,

Never heard of the bloke so first port of call was his Wikipedia page. It do not inspire confidence.

"The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51] These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper."

When you are forced admit to stupid mistakes in your own paper it isn't a great look except to someone like Hasbeen.

Why should I bother any further?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 26 October 2018 7:07:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SteeleRedux

In science terms, the papers written by Lindzen are quite old, climate science has come a long way since Lindzen has retired.
In the past when researching climate change Lindzen's name has cropped up as a scientist receiving financial support from fossil fuel companies.
Quote:

"In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).[6] However, analysis of Peabody Energy court documents showed that the fossil fuel company backed Lindzen,[2] proving that Lindzen was lying."

In 2004, Lindzen wanted to make a 50-to-1 bet that by 2024 the Earth would be cooling, his bet was not taken up, lucky for him he would have lost! You do not need a thermometer to know temperatures are increasing, thawing permafrost tells the story.

From:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen#Linzden.27s_Betting_Challenge_on_Global_Warming

A Newsweek article is about how some climate scientists were bought:

From:

http://www.newsweek.com/peabody-energy-coal-company-backs-climate-change-deniers-470803
Posted by ant, Saturday, 27 October 2018 7:16:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our big problems are twofold. First we have convince Abbott and his idiot mates that climate change is real, and second we have to get the Labor idiots to change their minds on nuclear power. We are going to run very low on dispatchable power once the current coal fired power stations are closed down. I doubt there will be enough gas available to make up the difference and anyway, gas also produces copious amounts of CO2, a fact which seems to have been overlooked by all the brains. There some bloody dreamers out there.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 27 October 2018 7:42:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another point I would make which also seems to have been overlooked by the cognoscenti is the fact that it takes a relative small amount of energy to raise the temperature of frozen snow, ice and tundra up to melting point and 13.5 times as much energy to actually melt it. We have been going through the first stage for the past couple of hundred years, but we have now entered the next stage, so for a while the rate of increase in average temperature might slow down a bit. After that the rate will increase.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 27 October 2018 7:51:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David. Don't know why you bother! The decision makers are afflicted with the same Sargent Schultz syndrome as Hasbeen.

Or are in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, like the scientist Don quotes? And along as the current crowd and their mates opposite control outcomes, we will continue to be the captive market they have arranged for us. Be it the fossil fuel companies or the business barons with special interests in renewables?

Ably aided and abetted by a US admin, that has prohibited any meaningful research into thorium as a future fuel!

Because if we had MSR thorium as a done deal? Both the fossil fuel industry would be out of business and big nuclear would have to declare bankruptcy.

All of which are, self evidently, vastly more important to Don and his mate Hasbeen than whether or not, THEIR VERY OWN GRANDKIDS, INHERIT AN INHABITABLE PLANET!?

The absolute bewilderment is compounded by the fact that, Thorium is the most energy dense material on the planet, is vastly cleaner, safer and cheaper than coal! Moreover, all of the money we currently earn from coal exports could be doubled/trebled by the sale of reticulated energy, made in nuclear waste burning MSR thorium power plants.

The undersea cable that sends power both ways to Tasmania, could be replicated several dozen times over and send predetermined fixed cost power to dozens of far larger state entities. And with carbon-free power that the coal and current nuclear technology, can't hold a candle to.

Other than that, we can mass produce and export factory-built modules as waste to biogas plants or as miniaturized thorium powered power plants. And earns squillions every which way as we are paid annual billions by other folks to safely dispose of their waste.

If one was limited to arguing on the economic or business case alone. The opponents, wouldn't get a look in, let alone a foot in the door!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 27 October 2018 9:51:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David

A reference I have often provided in relation to the increase in temperature is by Anton Vaks, his team found that 1.5C over pre-industrial times would see permafrost rapidly thaw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N71YvYqJWQc

Not only are a number of skeptical scientists funded by fossil fuel corporations; but, their studies are flawed:

http://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/?fbclid=IwAR1bJQlMJmozkxnysxGscIVdBM4Gs-vnGdbgoFZtCxLlNryfa2MCRX-GYxY

Quote:

"Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.

“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post."

Likewise, the work of Lindzen has been repudiated, by subsequent research:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta
Posted by ant, Saturday, 27 October 2018 9:51:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In every upcoming election, state/Federal, every candidate must be asked to state his or her position, relative to climate change and nuclear power? And if unable to commit to either as a first-term first order of priority!? And back their evocations with positive action!

Needs to be disendorsed or put at the bottom of the ballot paper, regardless of political allegiance.

Furthermore, we need to limit lobbyist's access to politicians and increase the length of their post politic retirement before they are employed by this or that entity or foreign investor as lobbyists with the ear of the current government?

Or indeed, any future government, if the party providing the pay packet, salary or generous commission is a foreign-owned/controlled or foreign-based entity!

If I had my druthers? Similar appointments would be limited to national companies, HQ'ed here!

National interest needs to be backed by patriotic, national allegiance, that can neither be bought or sold!

Particularly, when that national interest and our freedom to choose, has been bought and paid for with the blood sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of ANZACS!

Lastly, the nuclear option cannot be drowned out in this or that talk show by the selection of candidates, whose only alternative to coal is renewables.

Or where any attempt to raise the topic of nuclear as part of the discussion has the censoring moderater coughing, humming and harring, switching to another topic? And these are the same folk who filter all public knowledge!?

UNDERSTAND YET WHERE THE REAL PROBLEM LIES!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 27 October 2018 10:38:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My previous post has a mathematical error. It actually takes 40 times as much energy to melt the aforementioned entities, so whilst they are being thawed out we can expect a fairly long time during which the overall rate of warming slows down. Once the permafrost in the Arctic really starts to melt and the extreme effects of the liberated methane start to take effect, it will probably be much too late to do anything.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 27 October 2018 11:35:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hop...Looking out the hanger door, sun rising over the black running rivers of tar.
Straining his eyes to see a stooped figure of Karen, (Phelps that is), bent over in an embrace of a shovel at the end of Hops runway, as she plants the first rose bush for the day, in memory of lost sea gulls; dead by the millions from heat stroke.

He begins the long process now of winding up the new rubber band, replacing the fossil fuel motor once so revered, which will begin his new day, atmospheric cooling with the big propeller, subsidised with a taxpayer dollar subsidy.

Hop is startled by the noise of an unwinding rubber band of another plane, as it zooms over the hanger, dipping its wing in salute: Look, he shouts, its Noddy and Big Ears in their shiney and new tax payer subsidised atmospheric cooling aeroplane, Facebook logo gleaming, and all painted out in the colours of the rainbow, just for Karen.

This completes the global warming serial for today. The ABC are strapped for time to squeeze it into a slot between the bad PR for the LNP losers, and educating the masses unable to understand the supreme importance global warming is.

And to the thousands of sacrificial poor, disconnected from the coal fired power grid, assisting greatly in reducing Australia's reliance on filthy coal, up yours!
Posted by diver dan, Saturday, 27 October 2018 11:36:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
VK3AUU,

You need to pay more attention. “Abbott and his idiot mates” accept that climate change is as real as it has always been for thousands of years; they just don't accept the lie that it is man-made.

Guess that makes you the idiot.
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 27 October 2018 11:44:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How then do they explain the slow but accelerating increase in the amount of CO2 in the earths atmosphere which corresponds with the beginning of the industrial revolution and which is forever increasing as we pump more CO2 out of our coal and gas fired energy producers.
You have joined them as another idiot. It takes one to know one. I am one because I was my time trying to teach you something of the mechanics of the problem.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 27 October 2018 1:27:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn

The Wentworth by-election went well didn’t it; a repudiation of the views held by Abbott and his mates. Climate has always changed, there is no argument about that.

One view that could be held is that millions of years ago jets left contrails in the atmosphere, millions upon millions of cars were pushing emissions into the atmosphere, and coal fired power stations were voiding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That is not a sustainable argument; but, is my way of highlighting that just venturing a view that climate was changing in the past, does not mean it had the same reasons as what is happening now. The but is, paleo scientific research shows an increase and decrease in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere during those different epochs.

In the past, on this site, I have referenced Dr Burger, a Geologist, who showed how a thin seam of coal was ignited 252 million years ago. 252 million years ago was a time when nearly all life forms were exterminated. At that time CO2 was at a high level, ocean acidification was severe, and temperatures were high; abrupt change happened. Dr Burger found appropriate artefacts to sustain his arguments and replicated and extended previous research.

Do you tell people they are eating an apple when really it is an orange?
Virtually the question the video asks.

https://youtu.be/H5kejSYPD7U
Posted by ant, Saturday, 27 October 2018 2:35:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How satisfying it must be for these climate 'scientist' to live in a world of lies.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 27 October 2018 7:17:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner

It is amazing how the sun revolves around the Earth, and the Earth is flat. These views were held during the Dark Age. Presumably, those views held in the Dark Ages were held by faith. Brave scientists risked death through creating heresy by showing these faith views were wrong.

After the huge extinction of 252 million years ago, many new life forms subsequently developed. There were chemical changes in Oceans, and the atmospheric gases changed during the huge extinction. Geologists, Chemists, Paleontologists and Biologists etc have used the artefacts left in past epochs to understand what had happened. In other words they have use objective data to reach their conclusions.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X07000842

It is possible to argue from a faith point of view that science is wrong; but, faith does not rely on objective proof. Faith relies on strong beliefs.

Without objective evidence faith doesn't dent the data created by climate scientists, or other scientists.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 28 October 2018 7:54:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant: the Bible advises, cast ye not pearls (wisdom) before swine. The fact that you are trying to have an objective conversation with runner backed by mountains of objective evidence, evidence this person could seemingly verify with their own eyes!

But will forever refuse to do so given that would then cause the house of cards that is brainwashed from birth belief to tumble and fall and leave this person actually accountable to higher authority for the harm they've done? Or caused? Or could've prevented?

If proven substantive evidence proves you are wrong? Contributors like runner, I believe, will simply shut their eyes and refuse to ever look. There are none so blind etc. And inasmuch as you do unto the least among you, you also do unto me. Clearly, these people have done or caused plenty through the unremitting power of ignorance and virtual hate speech?

The madman who killed 11 people, in my Father's house, this very morning for the crime of being Jewish, from the same mould of twisted thinking and hate, due solely to the fact of inculcated false belief?

Quoting chapters/verse from some ancient book only proves, these were the beliefs of the writers, not whether or not they are factual!

Richard Bramston tells a story, where he took a highly placed official from the flat earth society on a low orbit space flight so he could see with his very own eyes a round earth.

Upon landing, Sir Richard asked, Well, what do you think now? And here I paraphrase, the official replied, the graphics were almost tue to life and the special effects very realistic.

And just like runner, when confronted by credible objective evidence, refuse to ever consider they could be following a false doctrine. runner will retreat as he always just into spouting, I am the lord and the way, and only those who follow JC will be saved. Totally wasted pearls before swine, Ant?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 28 October 2018 10:26:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day Alan B

I realise that runner has a closed mind, so I'm directing my comments at casual readers who might not make comments. here.
When there are something like 12,000 studies published per year in peer reviewed journals, I don't think the few words put out by runner or Don Aitkin make any dent. Runner relies on religion, while Don Aitkin relies on maverick scientists.
Earlier, I referenced Katherine Hayhoe, a devout Christian, who assessed 38 studies presented by skeptical scientists over a decade. That would seem to be about the total number of skeptical papers published when taking into account Powell et al.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 28 October 2018 11:12:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
10 facts which indicate that Human Induced Global Warming is a crock.

1. The first Global Warming conference held in Europe, rather embarrassingly occurred during one of the worst recorded snow storms in European history.
2. The Himalayan glaciers did not melt.
3. Climategate, where the "scientists" were caught admitting that the worldwide temperatures were showing no change, and saying that this crucial fact should be covered up.
4. The same thing happening in Australia where "scientists" from the weather bureau were found to have "adjusted" 100 year old nationwide historical temperature statistics .
5. The "ship of fools", who were Australian climate scientists, who went to Antarctica by ship to prove that Antarctic ice was disappearing, and got stuck in a new ice sheet that had not been there before.
6. Although "scientists" claim that sea levels would rise between 3 meters to 30 meters by 2100 (which would drown half the world), coastal real estate prices are not plummeting anywhere. This seems to indicate that banks and investment organizations (the really smart guys) know it is complete B.S.
7. Most of the USA, including southern states, blanketed in snow last year.
8. The original idea of Human Induced Global Warming is on so much shaky scientific ground, that even the UN has exorcised the "Human Induced" bit from it's title and now just calls it "Global Warming."
9. The persecution of academics and even their sacking for not towing the Global Warming party line. (Blomberg)
10. The general shift in the tone of the media from complete advocacy of global warming to a more measured position, as the penny drops, that just like with the Millenium Bug and Peak Oil, they have once again been taken in by charlatans and destroyed their own credibility.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 28 October 2018 11:15:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lego

You haven't provided any references for your points

1. Don't confuse weather with climate, Attribution is a fairly recent development where scientists are able to show the human finger print.
2 The Himalayan glaciers are melting, nobody has suggested they would be gone in a short time frame. As with glaciers elsewhere, there are then and now type photos.
3 There have been a number of Reviews of "Climategate" including one by the British Parliament, no problems found.
4 Temperature please provide your rigid evidence.
5"The ship of fools" .. people are not able to predict all matters that happen in inhospitable areas ..Admirals in own bathtub.
6 Periodic flooding in Miami, people have been warned in Maine about owning low lying property . Coastal erosion has been experienced in a number of areas, caused by sea level rise and storm surges.
7 Scientists talk about climate change as weather patterns are becoming eratic. Google Dr Jennifer Francis.
8 Have you seen the last IPCC Report published a few weeks ago?
9 Harassment cuts both ways, climate sciencists complain about death threats.
10 You must read the Murdoch press or watch sky "news".

Your points have been debunked a number of times, you have not provided any evidence.
The latest IPCC Report provide quite a stern warning about about climate change.
Please provide references.

IPCC Report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/?fbclid=IwAR3rkc-HZ85SUh8kLQEC4WfkTtMtNr4uvbet0Ec76AcSXnzp9dS3L8oRhfE
Posted by ant, Sunday, 28 October 2018 4:00:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
more facts to counter gw lies

ttps://electroverse.net/greenland-has-gained-510-billion-tons-of-ice-over-the-last-year/?fbclid=IwAR24fzT1HIPo1k8igNRIRD2ZUOt3yrXcpI-WZ24P6Sb30009G1rIAXsXwZ8
Posted by runner, Sunday, 28 October 2018 9:11:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So then, what would happen if the present Govt. said "ok, let's get serious & tackle climate change".
Firstly, we'll get 50% of the unnecessary cars off the road, cut all private home air conditioning,
ban motor racing, delay flights until the planes are fully booked, stop producing frivolous goods, reduce the numbers of cattle, stop producing petroleum based goods etc etc. Now, what do most of you think the chances of the Govt would be to get elected if they were to indeed start tackling climate change by the removal of the above mentioned top pollutants ?
Posted by individual, Monday, 29 October 2018 6:10:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lego

A video where Dr Jennifer Francis is being interviewed:

http://youtu.be/FaqeQ_IDg-Y

runner

Neither you or runner have produced any facts.
Anybody who takes an interest in the Arctic, knows that from season to season there are variations in snow and ice cover. Downhill skiers know that as temperatures warm snow carries more moisture and takes up more volume.
The mistake in the reference is that a conclusion is drawn from the particular and generating that to the general. Parts of the Arctic Ocean were ice free at the same time which is unusual. The total for the whole of the Artic Ocean for maximum extent of sea ice for the last few years has been very low, while the minimum continues to be low and is likewise variable from year to year.

March of Extent in million square kilometers
2015 14.54
2016 14.52
2017 14.42
2018 14.48

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/09/arctic-sea-ice-at-minimum-extent-2/

As a suggested the possibility in the NSIDC reference of sea ice extent lowering did happen.

A graph is also provided in the reference of the minimum extent in Antarctica.

No lies have been uncovered, what is shown though is a logical fallacy by your reference, runner. Scientists talk about extreme weather being created through climate change, it is exactly what your reference displays when scrolling other sections of the reference. Incidentally, it has been predicted that 2018 might be the 4th warmest year recorded globally. There are Regional variations, as there have always been, but the aggregate tells the story.
Posted by ant, Monday, 29 October 2018 6:34:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On Individuals point.

That's an intriguing supposition individual…

Already the first on the list is well underway. Remove 50% of vehicles from our roads.

The target is old vehicles.

The cost to the poor of Climate Change innovations:- (road transport).

Past innovations:-

1. Cash for clunkers = Gillard
2. Mandating ethanol in fuels. =Gillard.

Near future innovations:

1. Mandating electric (hybrid) vehicles.
2. Zero road deaths campaign in all states. ((Underway). This one is insidious).
3. Taxation increases. (Read tolls). Fuel excise increases. Double demerit fines.
4. Reducing subsidies to pensioners.

Some outliers:-
Government ignorance of cost of living pressures. (Walk ya bastards).

There is mounting pressure on families to abandon their vehicles.
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 29 October 2018 7:20:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From your last post individual, it sounds as if you might actually believe that reducing CO2 would have more than the most minute effect of the temperature of the planet.

Just to look at your first point, reducing unnecessary cars.

I have 3 cars. 2 of them I suppose could be considered unnecessary. However even despite my obvious brilliance, I can still only drive one car at a time. In a busy year those unnecessary cars will do perhaps 4,000 kilometres between them. If I did not have them, that's an extra 4,000 kilometres my shopping trolley would have to do.

After our last winter, any activity that can warm the planet is a good one. Note to self, drive my cars more often.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 29 October 2018 11:10:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the gullible/deceivers really believed in the gw rubbish they espouse, they would have teleconferences instead of lovefest in CopenHagen, Paris and wherever the next money wasting exercise is held. No but they will continue to fly the globe, virtue signal and burn up more co2 than the average man. They make many church hypocrites look tame.
Posted by runner, Monday, 29 October 2018 12:06:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner on your last post I would have to agree, we need some action instead of palaver, but your other posts are just full of fantasy and misinformation and outright lies.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 29 October 2018 12:51:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My first encounters with C.P. Snow were in the 1970s and came through finding his books on Op-shop shelves: Of his fiction, I read firstly Corridors of Power and The Affair and lastly, out of curiosity and respect for Snow as author, George Passant. As a writer, Snow took me into thoughtful areas, into a world where people were educated, were 'aware' and were interested in the issues of the new (post-war) era. I rate him high on my list of writers … very high.

Of the 'Two Cultures...', I understood (as a member of the 'humanist' camp) that Snow was (as a scientist) telling us that the two cultures, as distinct as they were, were not communicating. We were not speaking the same language. I might put in my own 'two bobs worth' here and recall the Manhattan Project. There was – still is – a divide between the science and our humanism. Incredibly, Oppenheimer (after the war) and Einstein (before it) had moved in different ways to limit/stop the development or use of that weapon. They were scientists who crossed the divide.
/...
Posted by Garry in Liffey, Monday, 29 October 2018 4:00:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.../
Yet Don Aitkin's posting of Richard Lindzen's address to the Global Warming Foundation is intriguing. For on reading the complete version of Lindzen's address, I was struck by the thought that whereas Snow had ostensibly argued for the two cultures to better understand each other, Lindzen while recognising the inherent good sense of 'ordinary' people, seems more intent on attacking 'educated' elites. He seems to accuse such elites of

“Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying.”

Further, Lindzen explains these behaviours (such as those of Maurice Strong) as being

“due to political actors and others seeking to exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion-dollar energy sector”.

Olaf Palme and Bert Bolin are similarly explained as using 'climate change' simply as a means to promoting

“nuclear energy by demonizing coal”.

Cardinal Maradiaga, close advisor to Pope Francis, is quoted by Lindzen as identifying capitalism's profit-seekers as ruining the environment. So we see a 'trifecta' of sorts, one in which the thread common to Strong, Palme and Maradiaga is the taint of socialism. In Lindzen's address, are we not getting a whiff of Stars and Stripes Republican ideology-over-people? And are we not seeing yet another example of American rejection/distrust of world-wide institutions? … International law, the U.N. and the IPCC?

The following, from 'Magma' [ MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen urges Trump: “Cut the funding of climate science by 80% to 90% until the field cleans up’? ], was interesting:

“I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analogous to his views of climate data.”
/...
Posted by Garry in Liffey, Monday, 29 October 2018 4:03:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.../
Needless to say, I'm not considering taking up smoking again. The Marlboro Man is long-time dead. Furthermore, regardless of Lindzen's slur against an ...

“ incoherent 'precautionary principle'”

I will continue to listen to the scientists. Despite Lindzen's rejection of the 97% figure (of scientists who believe in ACC), I have not been able to find material on the web which is sufficient to overturn my understanding that close to all scientists believe that climate change is influenced by human agency.

C. P. Snow was a totally-unexpected find in that Melbourne op-shop of the 70s. Never a part of our 60s school curriculum, but for me, a young bloke in his 20s, I was 'rapt' to discover reading material (albeit fiction) which spoke of post-war England, of 1950s 'modernism', I suppose you might call it and which in a steady way took me into worlds of power and learning of the which I had no experience. I'd read one or two of Pamela Hansford Johnson's works (e.g. Night and Silence : Who is Here? and perhaps The Unspeakable Skipton.) Perhaps on the basis of these I misjudged her. Still, interesting to consider whether Snow saw parallels to the 'Two Cultures...' within his own married life with P. H-J. My favourite of Snow's was 'The Affair' and even now I wonder at it, and see it with fresh eyes: the once hardly imaginable (to me) questions of scientific fraud and of 'scholarly' motivations – or should I put it: 'scholars' motivations'?. I recommend that book, and will have to go and dig it out of my library, scattered as it is.
Posted by Garry in Liffey, Monday, 29 October 2018 4:06:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garry in Liffey,

“Yes but” we now live in a post-computer world. If only we had a time machine.

The attachment of Snow towards G H Hardy, was Snows fascination with Hardy's ability and strong drive to be an “orbiter”. Detached.

Snows novels were his attempt to see life from the point of detachment. The “orbiter”.
Hardy's attachment to pure mathematics, was a natural inclination he struggled to justify.
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 29 October 2018 8:34:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I grabbed this excerpt from Wikipedia, but it is the paragraphs from Snow's essay which explains his thesis:

" A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?

I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had."

Gary has just given us a good example of what Snow is talking about by ignoring all of the science in Lindzen's speech (presumably because he doesn't understand it, but happy to be proved wrong) and smears his argument with irrelevancies, or side observations. To add insult to injury, he misreads what Snow was saying, so he's off the mark when it comes to the humanities as well.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 29 October 2018 9:14:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GY.

I would argue Gary is controlled by his biases as we all are, and has accurately articulated his bias. There is the problem in a nut-shell.

The game is to swing the bias of resistance in the opposite direction. The method is called propaganda. That's how SSM won the day.

Who has control of the propaganda machinery wins. Thus, down with the ABC, etc.
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 30 October 2018 7:04:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Earlier, Lego wrote "The Himalayan glaciers did not melt." that is true, it would take decades for that to occur. In the CBC reference, a former Research Station Manager makes mention of how melting is happening in the Himalayas and Andes. Nothing remarkable about that; but, in a film attached to article a glacial lake is shown, where the water had been behind a ice bank. The glacial lake is created by melting water; such lakes are reported in the Himalayas, the water being held by rubble. In the Himalayas those glacial lakes present danger for communities below them.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/national-yukon-glaciers-climate-change-kaskawulsh-1.4873035?fbclid=IwAR3qUCT43Xe49toQh4L8Cej8eaEyiUzm3A81c2FKfUtg8NPRZsr29RztKBU

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/90185/as-glacial-lakes-grow-so-do-the-risks

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/glacial-lakes-threaten-himalayan-dams/

Observation provides information that the number of glacial lakes are increasing in the Himalayas, that displays melting. Observation also shows how there are side effects from glacial changes, these are facts, the present is different to what was observed in the past, indisputable (watch the film).

My point being from fiction opinions might be formed, those opinions can easily gain different interpretations as shown by Garry and Graham. Wikipedia articles are interesting, though not always accurate, or not the best reference, as Greg Hunt found out. The other interesting fact is that P C Snow died in 1980, his points do not necessarily stand up in 2018. Science has moved a long way since 1980, it was a time when satellites had just begun to provide data about the natural world. Also, other high tech instrumentation was not used as shown in the film.

Where are the high level references that knock climate science out, the science of climate change has been in existence almost two centuries when taking into account Fourier. Experimentation was completed with CO2, in the mid 1800s by Foote and Tyndall. Prior to climate change denial, fossil fuel companies were already made aware of the problems. There is a plethora of documents to prove the point, an example:

http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1979-exxon-memo-on-potential-impact-of-fossil-fuel-combustion/
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 30 October 2018 8:56:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The title of the piece in Online Opinion was “An important essay by Richard Lindzen”. Don Aitkin in his introduction, gives a link to a speech made by Lindzen for the Global Warming Policy Foundation: https://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-global-warming-for-the-two-cultures/.

On the face of it, Lindzen's speech/lecture seemed designed to bolster his 'Iris' theory which I'll try and summarise in my layman's way:

The Greenhouse Effect (and thus Global Warming) will be offset (or is being offset) by the dissipation of upper level cirrus clouds. These clouds ordinarily stop - to some extent - the heat from our atmosphere reaching a point where it 'escapes' (radiates) beyond our atmosphere. However Lindzen uses the greenhouse effect to suggest that natural (convective?) processes are interacting with / can be expected to change the 'cirrus cloud barrier' to the effect that the cirrus part of our greenhouse blanket is being reduced and no longer contains the warmth within our warming atmosphere as it did before. That is, the warming of the atmosphere produced by our greenhouse gas emissions, will not result in global warming to the extent predicted by other scientists.

Lindzen's speech also included reference to "Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene" /Steffen et al. PNAS 14Aug2018. [ Here at http://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252.full.pdf ] I'd hazard a short summary of Steffen et al. in the following way:

Our human release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere risks our reaching a 'tipping point' at which our planet becomes 'Hothouse Earth'.

Postscript:
GrahamY and diver dan: please, my name is not Gary...

garrystannus@hotmail.com
Posted by Garry in Liffey, Friday, 2 November 2018 11:35:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We constantly see reference to “reduction of human emissions”, and “carbon pollution”, as if it were established science, when in fact there is no science to demonstrate any measurable human effect on climate.
The UN failed in its attempt to show that human generated CO2 caused global warming, but this did not cause any revision of the climate fraud promoters’ assertions. In fact they coined the phrase “carbon pollution”, to refer to the lie that human emissions affected global warming.
Carrbon is the basis of all life on earth, and these clowns refer to it as pollution.
Carbon dioxide is not a strong greenhouse gas.
The strongest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water vapour.
We have been stupid enough to accept the lie, by the fraud promoters, of “carbon pollution”.
In their twisted logic, the next target is “water pollution”
We have shown that we are stupid enough to accept such nonsense.
Something must be done about global warming.
The actions of the fraud promoters must be criminalised
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 2 November 2018 10:45:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

We need CO2, we need insulin, we need other hormones to survive, and we need oxygen etc.
Inject a small quantity of insulin into a healthy person and that will lead to death. Go into an environment where there is only CO2 and that leads to death. Those same principles can be applied to CO2 in the atmosphere, where an excess of CO2 creates problems. Acknowledged by fossil fuel corporations through the science completed by their scientist employees, and research commissioned in the 1970s and 1980s.

Water vapour is created by normal processes of transpiration and evaporation and in such a situation remains in a state of homeostasis. When extra warmth is created, the amount of water vapour increases.
The oceans are warming as is the atmosphere creating factors necessary for more water vapour to be created. Heat water in a kettle and what is a by product?
There is no doubt that water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas, but, it needs extra warmth to generate more volume over the state of homeostasis. Please provide science to show otherwise.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.W9yu1KdL2uU

Quote: "However, a vicious cycle exists with water vapor, in which as more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere and the Earth’s temperature rises, more water evaporates into the Earth’s atmosphere, which increases the temperature of the planet. The higher temperature atmosphere can then hold more water vapor than before."

It took millions of years of sequestration of organic materials to create fossil fuels; in comparison, we are burning those in an instant.

Leo, why is 1998 no longer used as a datum point by deniers?
Posted by ant, Saturday, 3 November 2018 7:04:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your confirmation of your absolute ignorance of the topic, flea. There is no excuse for the use of the term “carbon pollution”.
There is no excuse for the use of the term “denier”, which you have again used. You are unable to reference any science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so there is nothing to deny. You are repeating your ignorant nonsense, but no one was in doubt of your ignorance. It is obvious in everything you say..
Your attempt to mirror the failed IPCC assertion on carbon emphasises you complete lack of understanding of climate science.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 3 November 2018 1:51:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

As per usual you provide an aggressive response when not able to respond to my last comments. My last comments can be summarised by the view that you can have too much of a good thing, plain common sense. Whether you believe the science or not really doesn't make much difference to the results. Scientists are saying that we are now experiencing the effects of anthropogenic climate change.

Blomberg shows through graphing what is causing the warming of Earth:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/?fbclid=IwAR27SHMKGPUlXaCerlkoYZ5xkm-0kTaJZlca9BkDQfS2nufOu4Rjcv_s7ME

In response to your comment .. "The strongest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water vapour."

Basic science:

"As a greenhouse gas, water vapour serves creates a positive feedback cycle for global warming. This means that the warmer the world gets, the more water vapour will exist in the air as evaporation rates from oceans, lakes, and streams increase.[7]"

http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Water_vapour#Atmospheric_Water_Vapour

"With climate change, Earth is getting warmer as greenhouse gases build up and trap more heat in the atmosphere. These warmer temperatures cause increased evaporation of water from places like oceans, lakes, streams and soil. This leads to higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, which means that precipitation events tend to be heavier."

http://ww2.kqed.org/quest/2014/12/12/water-vapors-role-in-climate-change/

"The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Posted by ant, Saturday, 3 November 2018 3:47:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where is it demonstrated scientifically that there is too much carbon, flea?
The IPCC attempted this, and failed. They predicted the result of a raised level of CO2, and were wrong, because their application of the science through their faulty models always fails.
I did not reply to your nonsense. It stands to remind us of your ignorance.
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
Where is your answer to that, the reason that all of your assertions are invalid?
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 3 November 2018 8:54:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

No science?
Watch these series of lectures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrUfAdcN6ws&t=0s&list=PLFA75A0DDB89ACCD7&index=3

What we are meant to believe is that thousands upon thousands of scientists since the science of climate change had begun in the 1820s are wrong; while you know better, even though you provide no evidence. You are not a scientist!

You provide sophist type responses which you repeat constantly.
I doubt you read, or watch any references provided.

Where are your references?
Just saying something is wrong without evidence is meaningless, a logical fallacy
Posted by ant, Sunday, 4 November 2018 5:50:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I requested, flea, is reference to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate. You have not referenced any such science.
You have no science, and your assertions are invalid.
“Carbon pollution” and “denier” are invalid because you have no science to support them. They are baseless, and dishonest, and reflect your complete inability to grasp science. Do you understand that all life on earth is carbon based? Or do you have a mythical group of scientists who say otherwise.
Your baseless, unscientific assertions show your lack of sense, and your incompetence.You are incapable of reasoned sensible discourse.
I ask again for a reference to any science which shows a measurable human effect on climate, without which your assertions are baseless.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 4 November 2018 10:48:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Occasionally you trap yourself into saying something sensible, flea.
You said Just saying something is wrong without evidence is meaningless, a logical fallacy “
Well, almost sensible., if it refers to your inability to provide any evidence of science to show any measurable effect of humans on climate.
You say “at we are meant to believe is that thousands upon thousands of scientists since the science of climate change had begun in the 1820s are wrong; while you know better, even though you provide no evidence.”
When and where did I ask anyone to believe that, flea?I have never said anything so ridiculous.
I have asked repeatedly for you to refer me to any science showing a measurable human effect on climate, without which your assertions are unsupported rubbish.
You also asked that I prove a negative. Even with your lack of education you should know better.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 4 November 2018 5:01:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

You claim to know that thousands upon thousands of climate scientists are wrong; yet, you know nothing about Fourier, wow.

http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=2163

Quote:

"In 1824 French mathematician and physicist Jean Baptiste Joseph FourierOffsite Link published "Remarques générales sur les températures du globe terrestre et des espaces planétaires," Annales de Chimie et de Physique, 27 (1824) 136–67. In this paper Fourier showed how gases in the atmosphere might increase the surface temperature of the earth. This was later called the greenhouse effectOffsite Link."

You might now question me about Foote and Tyndall, from the 1850s. You might like to ask for references in relation to what fossil fuel companies knew about climate change in the 1970s and "80s.

I can surmise you did not watch watch the lectures from the University of Chicago which discuss the the science of climate change.

You are very aggressive; yet, do not have anything to back up your claims.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 4 November 2018 8:01:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another failure to put forward relevant facts, flea. You made an untrue assertion about what you say I asked people to believe, but you are unable to say where you assert this happened.
As I said, I never made any such request, so if you are not lying, please supply the information, which I am requesting for the second time. If you are lying, you will be unable to supply the information, because what you assert never happened
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 4 November 2018 11:11:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

You try and despatch science with sophistry, and provide no references to uphold what you say.
You clearly have not watched the lectures from the University of Chicago, reference provided previously.

I notice you have not made any attempt to argue against references provided in relation to water vapour with anything substantive. You had previously stated "... The strongest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water vapour." You clearly do not understand the concept of "positive feedback".

You make accusations, but do not provide any facts, please do so.
Posted by ant, Monday, 5 November 2018 7:17:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You said , flea, “You claim to know that thousands upon thousands of climate scientists are wrong; “
I ask you again, flea, when and where did I claim that. You have no answer, because it is a lie.
What I have said, is that you have referenced no science which shows any measurable human effect on climate, without which your assertions are invalid.
You seem to think that ignoring this complete bar to your credibility will cause it to go away.
It simply shows that your lack of upbringing makes you unfit for rational discourse.You have no concept of rational conduct.
You consider that you are entitled to ignore any question, the answer to which discloses the invalidity of your dishonest situation.
There is no science to support your situation, which is based on the lie of human caused climate change.
You have no science, just dishonesty
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 5 November 2018 1:45:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

Exactly what do you mean by "We have shown that we are stupid enough to accept such nonsense. Something must be done about global warming.
The actions of the fraud promoters must be criminalised"

The interpretation would seem to me to be that scientists and those who believe the science are acting in a fraudulent way. So, that is contingent with thousands upon thousands of scientists being wrong in your view.
Posted by ant, Monday, 5 November 2018 7:00:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You say, flea:”would seem to me to be that scientists and those who believe the science are acting in a fraudulent way. So, that is contingent with thousands upon thousands of scientists being wrong in your view.
Posted by ant, Monday”
Who counted these alleged thousands of scientists, FLEA? You are aware, I hope, that the97% of scientists asserted to support the climate fraud, has been shown to be false. It was FROM A PAPER BY John Cook, the fraud promoter, who owns the deceptively named Skeptical Science siteand shown to be invalid.
Correct your calculations, and let us know how many fraudulent scientist there are. You have admitted you were lying about the assertion that I said any of the scientists were fraudulent. That is your own assertion.
The question I asked you was to be answered if you were not lying about what I said, and your not answering, I would take as confirmation that you were lying.
You have at least confirmed that you were lying when you made the false assertion that I asked people to believe that thousands of scientists were fraudulent
You have not answered any question about the science on which you rely for your support of the climate fraud.
You have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate. If any of the links you have in your ignorance posted
show such science,please draw it to my attention. It appears to me that none of them do, so you have wasted our time through your incompetence.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 5 November 2018 10:35:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I asked you, flea, to state whether you were aware that all life on earth is carbon based.
Your deficient education, or lack of any manners has constrained you from replying. When you reply, please state your view on the use of the scurrilous and baseless term, “carbon pollution”.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 1:04:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It appears that the flea has given up his activity as a pest.
His lack of education even surprised him, particularly when he realised that water vapour is an important greenhouse gas.
His reaction was to post material from the internet to pretend that he had been aware of it, but it was another reminder of his lack of education.
It is nice to see the back of him.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 7 November 2018 11:29:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

When you begin answering questions I ask, then you you can expect answers from me. I have asked for references to support your opinion; you clearly are not able to do so.

You clearly have not watched the series of lectures referred previously, and ask a very facile question. It is very clear you have not understood my analogy of a healthy person injecting a few units of insulin .. death would be the result.

Rather than sophistry and extreme abuse, please provide references.

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

Quote:

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

You write garbage Leo.
References please.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 8 November 2018 6:43:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The flea is back again, and says:” When you begin answering questions I ask, then you you can expect answers from me. I have asked for references to support your opinion;
This is further proof of the flea’s inability to think straight.
He supports an assertionof human caused global warming, but has no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
He has now put forward a statement which he says was made by “18 scientific associations”. He is unable to give any link to this asserted statement.
He also commits the logical fallacy of requesting that I prove a negative, because he has no proof of the asserted science upon which he relies, because there is no such science.

“Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.”
Accused of a fallacy? Suspect a fallacy? Ask Dr. Bo and the community
There are difficulties in dealing with an uneducated ill mannered person who insists on participating beyond his abilities. Why did you come back, flea? It must be obvious to you that you are attempting to participate in a situation beyond your capacity.
Where is the reference to science which shows any human effect on climate?.
It does not exist and your request that I prove its non existence, is just another manifestation of your uneducated, ill-mannered nonsense.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 8 November 2018 11:41:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//He has now put forward a statement which he says was made by “18 scientific associations”. He is unable to give any link to this asserted statement.//

He did that in his last post. But here is it again, because apparently you don't read so good or something.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 8 November 2018 1:33:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Toni. He has found some lies printed by NASA, but they do not go so far as to say that human emissions affect the climate, just the unscientific, and baseless assertion of the mendacious IPCC, that it is “highly likely”.I Know you were trying to help,Toni, but what I said was correct. There was no linkto any science, because there is no such science. The flea just likes to waste my time. Please mind your own business, and do not help him.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 8 November 2018 2:38:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//I Know you were trying to help,Toni, but what I said was correct. //

No, what you said was, and I quote:

"He is unable to give any link to this asserted statement."

But he was. I know he was, because I copy+pasted his link into my post. You are a liar and a fraud, sir... not to mention a frightfully rude fellow.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 8 November 2018 2:58:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Leo Lane,

Mate.

We used to debate this topic years ago and although you were a strange bird even back then at least you would try and debate the topic on halfway normative grounds, you know, ones which don't involve going off like some madrass nutter in virtually incoherent babble speak.

Are you travelling okay at the moment? Or is it the result of being in the 'trenches' for too long. It might be time to have a break and get yourself tracking straight.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 8 November 2018 4:53:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

If I wished to provide an example of somebody using psychological projection, you provide the obvious example.
Science is about evidence based comment.
Not sophist gibberish.
Your references please.
Posted by ant, Friday, 9 November 2018 5:36:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony. Ant and Steeleredux et al.
You are all wasting your time trying to beat knowledge into the heads of people with cast iron brains. They belong to an unfortunately large cohort which asserts that belief supplants evidence and the more evidence you give them, the stronger become their beliefs. Religious nutters and conspiracy theorists also fall into the same category. They do not understand the principles of reasoned argument nor will they ever. They are to be pitied, but most importantly, ignored. This is barren ground, you cannot expect the good seeds to grow in the ordure which is oozing therefrom.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 9 November 2018 6:48:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, David. You are right about entrenched views. I respond on the basis of providing information to people who read articles here on a casual basis. In other words knocking out the strawman garbage put out by Leo et al.
Posted by ant, Friday, 9 November 2018 9:56:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni Lavis has called me a liar and a fraud. He has shown how he gained the mis- apprehension that I was a liar, because I carelessly dismissed the flea’s claim as I routinely do his monotonous lies. Tony’s pea brain did the rest.Knowing nothing about the situation, he drew wrong conclusions and made a fool of himself, telling baseless lies about me..
Toni Lavis, of course had to tell us, some time back, on another thread, that despite having a woman’s name, he is, in fact, male.
He never explained his obsession with female sexual perversion, but I will ask why, without basis, he has called me a fraud. Why did he tell this gratuitous lie?
Are you a habitual liar, Tony, or is this a single instance? Do you claim to be truthful, Tony, despite this blatant lapse? In any case it demonstrates your severe mental limitations. You have enough problems, don’t you, Tony, with your disgusting obsession wit female sexual perversion.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 10 November 2018 11:28:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

I believe Graham should delete your last comments about Toni. They only below in in the gutter, no professional journal would allow such personal attacks.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 11 November 2018 5:21:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Toni Lavis, of course had to tell us, some time back, on another thread, that despite having a woman’s name, he is, in fact, male.//

Toni is actually one of those names applied to both males and females.

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

In my case it's a hypocorism of Antonio, a name that my parents chose for me. Since there is no 'y' in Antonio, I see no sound reason to add an extraneous one when shortening my name.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 11 November 2018 6:21:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant says”
LeoI believe Graham should delete your last comments about Toni". Yes, flea, my comments are true, and you have a pathological hatred of the truth, so you believe they should be deleted.No doubt you believe Toni's lies about me should be allowed to stand.
You are consistent, flea, always anti truth, and pro-lies.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 12 November 2018 2:32:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

You still have not provided any references to science, until you do I rest my case.
Your excessive aggression really says you protest too much; in other words you are not confident about your opinion. That fits into my comment made earlier about displaying psychological projection.

References please.
Posted by ant, Monday, 12 November 2018 3:11:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The flea says I have posted no science. I have posted this before, but the flea has "forgotten":”Carbon Dioxide hypothesis Fails
Robert Carter, a specialist in paleo-environmental and paleo-climatic topics and author of the book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus,” shows how this hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) fails. Below are some excerpts from a long post titled “Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not?” See full post here.
Many different lines of evidence can be used to test the Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (DAGW). Here are five pieces of evidence, all of which are based upon real world empirical data.
1. Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.
Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.
2. During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4̊C and 0.7̊C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7̊C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1̊C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5̊C/century.
In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.
3. If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric car
So far, no evidence has been presented to disprove the null hypothesis.
https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/failure-of-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-hypothesis/
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 13 November 2018 12:28:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The flea says “You still have not provided any references to science, until you do I rest my case.
I have now posted, again, the science which shows the failure of any science upon which the flea relied.
I have requested, numerous times, that he refer me to any science which shows any measurable human effect on climate.
He has failed to reference any science. His fraud promotion is baseless, isn’t it, flea? He has no case to rest. Not a shred of science
Better than lying, isn’t it ,flea. You did not assert that you had a case, just referred to a non existent case, which you do not have. You are certainly dishonest.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 13 November 2018 1:05:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Yes, flea, my comments are true//

No they weren't.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 13 November 2018 5:43:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please provide references, Leo.
Carter does not knock out the science of climate change.

Temperature increasing can be identified in the environment .. permafrost thawing in tundra areas shows temperature increasing. For permafrost to thaw temperatures need to be high over an extended period. Greening in such areas being a result; also lakes, ponds, and marshes are formed. Seasons are changing which have an impact on the feeding habits of migratory birds.
The surf being up in Barrow, Alaska as the ice barriers in the Arctic Ocean have been lost.

Glaciers around Earth are disappearing. There are a few that are increasing; with higher temperatures snow has more volume in comparison to powder snow. It is something that downhill skiers are well aware of.

My theme here is to make it very clear to you; Leo, that higher temperatures causes snow and ice to melt. If you thought about it rather than contemplate how abusive you can be, you might agree that snow and ice do need higher temperature to melt or thaw.

Provide RESEARCH Leo, not commentary from Carter or Duhamel.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 13 November 2018 6:52:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not the first time I have posted Carter’s impeccable science, which demolished the IPCC’s flawed science on human emissions.
Just to remind you of how he dealt the death blow to the flawed assertion of the IPCC, almost 10 years ago:Carter said:
“Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.
Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.
2. During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4̊C and 0.7̊C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7̊C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1̊C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5̊C/century.
In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.
3. If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.
In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales.”
The flea pretends that he is too stupid to remember the science which demolished the so called science upon which he relied, but even the flea could not be so stupid. He has no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
Same old loser, aren’t you, flea?No science, just dishonesty.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 14 November 2018 7:40:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

You have not provided research Leo.
You present opinions.
Please provide research!!

As stated earlier, the environment displays warming.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 14 November 2018 9:18:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You cannot even provide a coherent post, can you flea.
I provided science, showing that you have none
Bye, crap for brains, I will waste no more time on you.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 15 November 2018 1:12:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

Abuse does not provide any references to RESEARCH.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 15 November 2018 5:40:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The IPCC is tenacious in its fraud promotion, and asserts that human produced CO2 causes climate change despite the fact that they have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
They have no science, only dishonesty.
“No one knows what will really happen. We can’t see the future. We know CO2 is increasing relentlessly, yet temperatures are not. If you believe in the IPCC models, then you need worldwide temperatures to start going up, and soon. A few more hurricanes wouldn’t hurt, either. If you agree that solar activity primarily drives climate changes, then you will probably agree with the current scientific consensus outside the IPCC and with the conclusions of a recent metastudy on temperature forecasts: one degree C of warming this century, plus or minus one degree. That’s the 90%-confidence prediction at this point, but there’s always a chance that they are wrong, or that things will change unexpectedly. We’ll know a lot more in another twenty years or so.
https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 17 November 2018 10:16:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

You base your opinions on gibberish and conspiracy theories, Leo.

Previously I have provided a reference to a series of lectures provided by the University of Chicago in relation to the greenhouse effect, you clearly have not watched the films.
Your David Siegal reference is quite meaningless; it is a blog, Siegal is not scientist.

Please provide RESEARCH, Leo. Blogs are not research.

Deniers do not provide Research, all they do is make negative comments about research that has been completed.

Previously you wrote about the impact of water vapour, water vapour being a positive feedback from CO2. Now it is the sun spot apparently.

Where is your science that you claim you have?

Lectures from University of Chicago:

Introduction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrUfAdcN6ws&t=0s&list=PLFA75A0DDB89ACCD7&index=3

Greenhouse Effect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-5PsoF7Vp0&index=5&list=PLFA75A0DDB89ACCD7
Posted by ant, Sunday, 18 November 2018 8:19:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

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