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 > Are the bushfires a result of climate warming? > Comments

Are the bushfires a result of climate warming? : Comments

By Peter Bowden, published 16/1/2020

Bushfires have long been part of the Australian scene, but the recent outbreaks have been excessive.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 39
  7. 40
  8. 41
  9. All
"Are the bushfires a result of climate warming?"

No!
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 16 January 2020 8:18:49 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
ttbn,

<<"Are the bushfires a result of climate warming?"

No!>>

'No' is your assertion, i.e. your opinion. Please give us your reasons for this negative assessment.
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 16 January 2020 8:30:50 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
The climate hysterics and fear-mongers raving on about unprecedented hot weather have nothing to say about the extremely low temperatures occuring in Adelaide at the moment: 23 today, with forecasts of 24 Friday; 25 Saturday; 21 Sunday; 22 Monday.

In the MIDDLE OF SUMMER, in the hottest, driest state!. When are people going to realise that we are simply having an unusual Summer this year; it's not the end of the world?
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 16 January 2020 8:31:56 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
OzSpen,

If you still need reasons, you are a very dull fellow. All the reasons, have been spelt out many times by many different people. You don't want to accept them, so don't ask me to go over them again?
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 16 January 2020 8:37:03 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
No. We've always had bushfires!

However, the severity and the enduring nature of a drought its duration and severity, the worst in living memory, may mean we have to factor in human-caused climate change.

The climate changes and is controled by the sun.

When it waxes (increased solar activity) the joint warms up and the ice retreats.

, When it wanes (reduced solar activity) the joint cools and the ice advances.

This has been the pattern for time immemorial. And changes around every 200 years like a solar pulse?

That said, what cannot happen is record temperatures, ice melts etc when we are in a waning phase as we have been since the mid-seventies. (NASA)

One notes that the biggest investment house on the planet announced in this morning's news that it is getting out of thermal coal and where it goes, with its trillions, all other sane and rational investors will follow!

Moncton and co can jump up and down go bananas and rattle the cage in insane fury? But that won't change what the rational investors decide how to invest their money!

So, is there any other substitutes for thermal or metallurgical coal? And the income we a trading nation earn from holes in our dry parched ground? In a word yes. TBC.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 16 January 2020 9:19:42 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
Peter, you are behind the times, the ground has shifted under you.
It will be a shock to read the links and I suggest you follow them up
to the original papers.
To echo Bill Clinton "IT IS THE SUN STUPID !" No offense intended !

http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3b-the-svensmark-hypothesis/

Helinski Times http://tinyurl.com/y3h3qpa5

http://tinyurl.com/y23a6nev

The papers produced by Turku & Kobe Universities has caused a storm
of rejection by the establishment, but they cannot deny the science
behind it. However it is something more important than science, it
is History that is supporting the current warming period.
History cannot be denied and the current warming arrived right on schedule.
It is roughly a 600 year cycle.
Just 300 years after the Maunder Minimum.
Just 1100 years after the Vikings settled on Greenland.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 16 January 2020 9:45:00 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
Cont. What can replace coal as an energy source? Well cheaper than coal, MSR thorium!

And in steel smelting? Hydrogen.

Our current energy exports? Reticulated carbon-free energy transmitted via graphene cored undersea cable were we are the price fixers, and given we are intelligently lead at prices none can beat! Yet still win a handsome profit for we the supplier!

Always providing that power is generated in nuclear waste burning MSR's and managed via essential cooperative capitalism the government ought to both fund and facilitate. And where these new start-ups go head to head in fierce competition for market share.

This feature will allow our money to remain here earning income and tax for us! And where the usual flow-on economic factors will make one dollar do the work of seven or more!

Finally, if we and we can, couple this cheapest of all energy to new space age desalination, i.e., deionisation dialysis desalination we will be able to use this inexhaustible supply on cost-effective broad-scale irrigation on any crop we choose and on the arid driest country if we so chose!

None of the above is hypothetical but tried and tested field trialled innovation and MSR is the safest way to generate energy on earth and has the added advantage of being carbon-free.

Do this and all other nations will see there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by transitioning to cheaper reliable, dispatchable, carbon-free 24/7 safe, clean nuclear energy.

Mining jobs, we can mine many other minerals besides coal and more importantly use them here in local manufacture!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 16 January 2020 9:47:05 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
Are the bushfires a result of climate warming?
No !
Climate change is a result of a natural evolutionary cycle. The Bush fires & pollution are caused by consumerism & bureaucratic stupidity !
Posted by individual, Thursday, 16 January 2020 10:04:23 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
The Earth, being a dynamic system, always has and always will change.
Hence the climate has and will change as time passes.
It is unproven whether or not that the actions of Homo Sapiens is a direct cause. However we are not doing ourselves any favours by burning fossil fuels and polluting our only atmosphere. Hence it may be fair to say that our actions certainly are exacerbating the rate of change.
We will never stop climate change but we can make life easier for ourselves, probably too late, and future generations, still possible. However the first step in achieving any semblance of progress in this regard is to reduce the population of Homo Sapiens to a sustainable number, whatever that may be. It is obvious to even blind Freddy that the current numbers are NOT sustainable in the short or long term. Seeing as two humans cannot generally agree on anything getting 7.5 billion plus to agree to a voluntary reduction in births is pretty remote.
Mother nature will sort it out in a not too pretty fashion.
Obviously Hanrahan was correct........
Posted by ateday, Thursday, 16 January 2020 10:39:49 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
Come on Peter old feller, even at your age you still have to show some responsibility.

That means you have to do just a little research before you go bursting into print with ridiculous stories, or intended lies.

The 1974/1975 burnt an area 9 times greater than these disastrous fires today. Yes these are disastrous, but mainly because of greeny preoccupation with the global warming scam, fighting fuel reduction burns, many more have built homes in the bush fire prone areas, & the incompetent national parks organisation have been given control of previously productively used native forests, controlled by foresters.

You can no longer simply run verbal diarrhoea & get away with it old boy, we all have access to the net, & can quickly do the research you didn't bother with, before this rubbish, or hoped we wouldn't do, so you could get away with these wild lies.

With this rubbish you have destroyed any credibility you may ever have had, so I think you best toddle off, to some greeny enclave, where such lies are the basic fare.

Check with Mr O, he'll know all such places, & the arty farty folk who inhabit them.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 16 January 2020 10:47:54 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
IF it turns out that increasing fuel load was by far the major factor in these devastating bushfires, coupled with state, NP and local council policies to prohibit the cutting down of trees around houses and along roadways, and wind back fuel reduction plans, then to a large extent, climate change and CO2 become quite irrelevant.

Bushfires need dryness, ignition and fuel load. Australia's periodic droughts provide the dryness. Thunderstorms [and a handful of arsonists] provide the ignition. And policies provide for the extent of the fuel load.

In fact, heat doesn't have to come into it at all as a factor, although obviously it helps.

Of course there is climate change, it's probably nearly as hot now was it was back a thousand years ago, when Greenland grew crops and grapes grew in the north of England. Of course CO2 is a major factor which contributes to current climate change, along with the actual heat artificially produced over the past 200 years. But they are not necessary for bushfires to start and spread.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Thursday, 16 January 2020 11:35:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The answer is categorically NO!
And BTW alarmists, STOP pushing the absolute BS and mis-representation of what is an absolutely NORMAL occurrence.
Go ahead and call it GW and CC if it makes you feel better, BUT:
DON'T GO CALLING IT HUMAN INDUCED GW OR CC!
IF we (Aussies) have done anything, it is so small, it is not worth calculating.
The alarmists are going to have to throw in the towel and admit they have been conned.
I know it sounds absolutely absurd that anyone would start such a fantastic lie, but con-men will try anything because they know that the greater majority of the population are weak and easily led.
At first, I sat on the fence, finding this whole thing too preposterous to be even close to the truth, but because I did not know enough about it I kept looking, and slowly the evidence came forth, and as the record of my postings and comments from way back will attest, I have now taken the side of denialists, simply because the truth proved I was right all along.
Now I am curious what all the know-all, know-nothings, are going to do with all this spare time on their hands.
I won't bother repeating what a lot of people have already said in confirming and explaining why this whole climate thing is a big NO!
I'm going to guess, you're all sick of hearing about the earth's temperature cycles every few hundred years.
Yeah, OK, I know, that's enough of that.
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 16 January 2020 11:38:39 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
Peter, it is very obvious from this opinion piece that your strong points are not science, nor meteorology, nor bush fire management, nor climate science, nor fire fighting. You have brought nothing of fact to the discussion.
If, has has been claimed, there is in fact a measurable increase in average global temperatures over the past century, it is still less than a full degree centigrade. This does not cause the spontaneous ignition of piles of dry vegetation that have built up in the Australian National Parks, Nature Reserves and Forestry Reserves. It is this build up of fire fuel that has driven the bushfire "emergency" this season. One fire can spawn dozens of others downwind of it, so a single act of arson can generate over one hundred subsequent fires.
Your attacks on people who have questioned the simplistic acceptance of AGW shows that you, personally, have not dug into what is happening in the Australian environment. You have driven it as a side of politics division. Maybe there is less smoke and mirrors on the "conservative" side?
The responsibility for the management of the sites of those fires has been that of the State Governments and it is not the Federal Government that needs to feel any shame about what a poor job has been done over many decades.
An interesting side note of the fighting of these fires is that the extremely expensive use of the large airtankers and other aerial "assets" doesn't appear to be giving the "bang for the buck" that their supporters lead us to expect. Their not being in the air in those first few hours every morning leads to ask what they are really here for?
Posted by Jay Cee Ess, Thursday, 16 January 2020 11:48:11 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
has Peter ever written an article where Abbott, Trump or Murdoch are not to blame. Dear oh dear all these professors who have been paid for by capitalist push the swamp narrative. I was dumb enough once to believe universities were set up to get people to think. Where do you send your kids these days if you want them to learn facts and think? Certainly not our unis. Ask Prof Ridd.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 16 January 2020 12:32:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmmm. When climate change believers attack individuals, they demonstrate the weakness of their beliefs and when they merely spruik the same old material, handed to them by the global warming hi-priests, no one listens anymore.

I wonder when the reality of the climate change 'suit of cloths' is recognised as gossamer thin, will the blame Tony Abbott for supplying them with substandard cloth and thread... and they sue him?
Posted by Alison Jane, Thursday, 16 January 2020 1:13:19 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
Abbott Abbott Monckton Murdoch Murdoch Murdoch Trump. Curious "proof".

These fires are exposing the failure of state control in typical fashion. That's what all the old school socialists are upset about.
"Environment Environment Environment" We must have state control of everything for the sake of "Environment".
Anyone who tried to mention the potential dangers of all this preservationist state control was shouted down and ridiculed. For over a quarter century it's been the same one sided push.

You can't blame farmers, foresters or outer urban homeowners. They've been totally hamstrung with legislated tree preservation dogma for years. And judging from the words "new normal" being thrown about it sounds like the intent is to keep it that way.
It started with the Nature Conservation Act and then the EPBC act along with the apology for the coal extraction to the UN in the form of the Australia clause for Kyoto to count carbon stored in forest preserved from clearance. (Sorry Jay Cee Ess. The Fed is central). The states implemented it all to avoid the compensation the Federal government would otherwise have to pay landowners.

Environmentalism laws and state incompetence caused the intensity and destruction of these fires. Weather conditions played a part but that part can't be controlled unlike the state imposed build up of fuel and prevention of private land clearance.

These recent fires are only a drop in the bucket. The vegetation preservation dogma has been imposed right across the country.
From now on every home, livestock animal and human life lost to this type of fire outbreak is on the federal and state governments so long as they maintain current environmentalism laws.
Posted by jamo, Thursday, 16 January 2020 2:18:26 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
"However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago."

http://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345#d1152638e1

It seems axiomatic that higher temperatures = more fire. That's certainly the prevailing common knowledge. But the evidence suggests otherwise and that our penchant for fighting all fires in all places is the real root cause of the problem.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 16 January 2020 2:37:36 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
A good burn-out will do the place good.

Dan
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 16 January 2020 3:23:12 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
FACT Planet Earth stores vast amounts of carbon in its various forms. The core of the Earth is approx.6,000 degrees C, comparable to the temperature of the surface of the Sun. As the planet slowly cools, a thin solidified crust is forming, together with oceans of water, and a rarefied gaseous atmosphere. The lungs of the planet are the oceans that are heated mainly from below, as gravitational and electro-magnetic forces cause fissures and vents, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The sub-sea crust is thinner and hundreds of thousands of underwater vents constantly discharge solid, liquid and gaseous matter into the water in volumes exceeding by far anything produced by humans. Gas is absorbed or expelled from oceans in accordance with Henry's Law as the water warms or cools. To boil some water for a cuppa, better to use an immersion heater, rather than wave a hair dryer over the top. Newly discovered ‘heat blobs’ in the oceans are the cause of previously unexplained El Nino and other weather phenomena. Water vapour is the overwhelmingly predominant ‘greenhouse gas’.
FACT: Coal is the product of hundreds of millions of years of photosynthesis as plants extracted a trace gas, carbon dioxide, from the air and stored the energy of the Sun in subsurface batteries of magnitude far beyond our ken. The relatively small amount burned by mankind returns some CO2 to an atmosphere, which is in geological timelines suffering a deficiency of this life-essential gas. The plantation trees surrounding the Tarong Power Station are growing at over twice the rate of similar trees 20 km away. We are helping to green the planet.
FACT: Mankind escaped constant cycles of famine and starvation using steam power with coal as the energy source, to allow the current generation to live with unprecedented longevity and prosperity, and the freedom to publish ad hominem attacks on decent people such as Christopher Monckton and Tony Abbott who had the temerity to stand against a wave of mass hysteria. But the tide is turning and the myth of anthropomorphic global warming is finally being exposed by principled scientists.
Posted by John McRobert, Thursday, 16 January 2020 4:24:41 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
As I said in earlier posts it won't be long before we won't be able to give our coal away! And in the not too far distant future, those nations that have already transitioned away from coal and fossil fuel will likely impose increasingly punitive carbon tariffs on exports from countries like ours with the highest per capita carbon footprint.

As for the forest fires, one notes that wetlands don't burn and those wetlands can be man-made! Just add water! Even if that requires the robber barons take a hit in the hip pocket!

And too easy with new technology accepted and rolled out by recalcitrant government obsessed with mining and using coal.

If we can't get investors to fund new coal-fired power stations then the government can build two or three with taxpayers funds?

All they need is a mandate from the people and need to flag their intentions before an election not afterwards like the still hated GST that only had a 13% approval rating prior to the term of the Howard government when he introduced his tax.

A tax which transferred taxpayer responsibility from those with the least and away from those with the most, sort of reverse good Samaritan action if you ask me

. As long as folk too stupid to see the forest for the trees argue over what caused it and who is responsible, nothing much will happen and the same old, same old status quo will remain. And the too all too obvious solution will be as usual pigeon-holed and gather dust!

And the robber barons and their lickspittle pollies will heave a sigh of relief?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 16 January 2020 4:30:56 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
Jay Cee Ess,

<<Peter, it is very obvious from this opinion piece that your strong points are not science, nor meteorology, nor bush fire management, nor climate science, nor fire fighting. You have brought nothing of fact to the discussion.
If, has has been claimed, there is in fact a measurable increase in average global temperatures over the past century, it is still less than a full degree centigrade. This does not cause the spontaneous ignition of piles of dry vegetation that have built up in the Australian National Parks, Nature Reserves and Forestry Reserves. It is this build up of fire fuel that has driven the bushfire "emergency" this season. One fire can spawn dozens of others downwind of it, so a single act of arson can generate over one hundred subsequent fires.>>

I commend you for such a splendid assessment of what causes bush fires and how that catastrophe could have been avoided.

In my understanding, instead of blaming global warming for the bush fires, we need to accept the evidence:

1. Our Indigenous People have done it for thousands of years. They have regularly done back burning of the undergrowth to control the possibility of fires.

2. Most will not accept this point. We have had a previous Prime Minister say, 'We can't make it rain', http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/immediate-relief-for-farming-families-takes-drought-relief-to-576-million, but he didn't tell us who could send the rain.

3. '[The LORD] makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth; he sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses' (Psalm 135:7). I'm waiting for our Christian Prime Minister, ScoMo, to call the people who believe in the power of prayer into church buildings to pray for God to be merciful on a wayward nation and send the rain to break the drought. We don't deserve it, after the way we have turned against Him. May He have mercy on us.
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 16 January 2020 4:59:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'. '[The LORD] makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth; he sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses' (Psalm 135:7). I'm waiting for our Christian Prime Minister, ScoMo, to call the people who believe in the power of prayer into church buildings to pray for God to be merciful on a wayward nation and send the rain to break the drought. We don't deserve it, after the way we have turned against Him. May He have mercy on us.'

yeah I think you are largely right OzSpen. It is the LORD who is Sovereign. He has also given man a free will. Close to a couple of hundred has used their free will to light fires in recent times. GW is then blamed. If not for the Lord's mercies we all would of been consumed long ago. When you read of the flood or Sodom and Gomorrah it amazes me how compassionate God has been to Aussies.

As far as ScoMO calling for prayer I am not so sure about. We have many of the warmist earthworshippers who think the 'sin' of burning coal has brought about these fires. 'Mother earth' is angry. Just ask Greta. Sheer lunacy and madness I know, but its exactly what lunacy rejection of our Creator does to one's mind. ScoMo's calling for prayer would simply trigger the god deniers with their usual hateful, intolerant rhetoric.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 16 January 2020 5:28:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No they are not the result of climate warming.

THEY ARE THE RESULT OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.

Climate warming? Well the hell did that one come from?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Thursday, 16 January 2020 6:28:07 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
runner,

<<ScoMo's calling for prayer would simply trigger the god deniers with their usual hateful, intolerant rhetoric.>>

Of course, but that does not defeat God's decrees:

+ 'Always be joyful. Never stop praying. Be thankful in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you who belong to Christ Jesus' (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18). This teaching was directed to a Christian church, 'Never stop praying'. We must not give up on God when we are in drought. We need to pray for his mercy to be given to a rebellious nation.

+ What happened when Elijah prayed? 'Elijah was as human as we are, and yet when he prayed earnestly that no rain would fall, none fell for three and a half years!' (James 5:17).

+ What happens if Australians resist the call to pray? 'And even when you ask, you don’t get it because your motives are all wrong—you want only what will give you pleasure' (James 4:3).

If we pray and don't receive any rain, there is a reason for God's not responding. We ask with a wrong reason in mind. If we want rain for selfish pleasure, don't expect God to answer.

Why is God holding off in sending a deluge of rain across the nation? Take a listen to Steve Grace's, 'God send the rain - the droughtland prayer', http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKhSjYM6BaI
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 16 January 2020 6:36:25 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
"There are indeed (who might say Nay) gloomy & hypochondriac minds, inhabitants of diseased bodies, disgusted with the present, & despairing of the future; always counting that the worst will happen, because it may happen. To these I say How much pain have cost us the evils which have never happened". (Thomas Jefferson)
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 16 January 2020 6:37:14 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
Mr Opinion, putting your statement in capitals does not suddenly change the facts of the situation.
As you must recognise, there are many factors involved in "climate change" and the increased levels of Carbon Dioxide are only a small player in the big picture.
It has been explained how a relatively small increase in average atmospheric temperatures has not been a causal factor in the unmitigated growth of vegetation in National Parks, Nature and Forestry Reserves (all directly controlled by the respective State Governments). It has also been explained by groups including the IPCC that there is not a direct link between the bushfires and "climate change".
The ignition of the many fires can also not be linked directly to any real or imagined results of this AGW. The causes are much more boring than that. Humans with flames and unstable dry air being driven by a quick moving front creating lightning.
Posted by Jay Cee Ess, Thursday, 16 January 2020 7:13:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It'll start raining again. Fires'll be forgotten, till next time when the scrub's even thicker.
Posted by jamo, Thursday, 16 January 2020 10:05:26 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
'It'll start raining again. Fires'll be forgotten, till next time when the scrub's even thicker.'

Yes Jamo and we will spend millions more on another Royal Commission having totally ignored the outcomes of previous ones outlining Green lunacy.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 16 January 2020 10:14:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi susanwebb,

What aspects are you studying?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 17 January 2020 5:17:53 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
Jay Cee Ess,

The climate change we are experiencing and which has created the hot dry conditions in Australia that has produced the catastrophic bushfires of 2019/20 is the result of global warming. The bushfires in Australia this year have made people around the world realise that fact and even died-in-the-wool climate change denialists like Soot 'Beam up me Scotty' Morrison have changed their spots and are now parading themselves as climate change warriors, albeit to protect their political scalps.

There are many probable causes of the global warming that could drive climate change. It might be anything from volcanic eruptions to solar spots to the Milankovitch cycles but we cannot take action against these things. But there is one probable cause of global warming that we can actually touch and see and can take action against. This is the burning of fossil fuels. By cutting back on the burning of fossil fuels we can reduce global warming and its consequential climate change.

All we need to do is get Soot and his buddies to start pestering the big greenhouse gas emitters, especially China, US, Russia, Japan, EU and India who together account for about 75% of emissions, to stop making Australia a victim of anthropogenic global warming.

Come come Soot, put down that chunk of coal and step up to the plate - you great big CLIMATE CHANGE WARRIOR.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 17 January 2020 5:39:33 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
Misopinionated,

Or just reduce the fuel load in fire-prone areas ?

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Friday, 17 January 2020 7:47:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

<<As far as ScoMO calling for prayer I am not so sure about. We have many of the warmist earth-worshippers who think the 'sin' of burning coal has brought about these fires. 'Mother earth' is angry. Just ask Greta.>>

That's not God's view. Who sends the rain? We can't invent it. ScoMo told SBS News on 24 February 2019: '"I can't make it rain but we're working closely with the local community to ensure the right supports are in place and that we have the water infrastructure needed for the future," Mr Morrison said in a statement', http://www.sbs.com.au/news/i-can-t-make-it-rain-morrison-s-31-million-drought-relief-package-for-farmers. I am left hanging: ScoMo - the Christian - please tell us who CAN make it rain in His time.

On 22 April 2007, The Sydney Morning Herald, had a headline, 'Pray for rain, urges Howard', http://www.smh.com.au/national/pray-for-rain-urges-howard-20070422-gdpyx1.html

That was in the midst of a drought where 'hard-hit agricultural regions face zero water allocations due to drought'.

We are in a worse drought situation now. When, oh when, will Scott Morrison call the people of Australia to prayer? I long to see the heading in the ABC, Sydney Morning Herald, and Courier-Mail: 'ScoMo has woken up: Only God sends rain'. We must pray for God's intervention'. Then he explains, '[God] causes his sun to shine on evil people and good people. He sends rain on those who do right and those who don’t' (Matt 5:45), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt+5%3A45&version=NIRV
Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 17 January 2020 8:35:55 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
yes, i think more fires will occur in the drier years to come as a result of global warming.

i think this was predicted by many.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 17 January 2020 10:59:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
more fires will occur in the drier years to come
Chris lewis,
I'm more inclined to think that fires in future could be much less destructive if the "experts" were moved aside & the sensible people put in charge of annual cold burning.
Wood fuel could be collected & burnt in power stations which would neutralise the effect of smoke affect. A whole new industry could be established bey keeping the fires under control !
Posted by individual, Friday, 17 January 2020 11:15:49 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
individual,

if more fires do occur, as predicted, there is no doubt that new approaches and industries will emerge.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 17 January 2020 11:27:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Opinion, the allegedly record hot and dry conditions are not what has created the bush fires of this season, nor have they solely created the conditions conducive to the fires. The marginally different climate conditions have been within acknowledged seasonal variations.
As I've said previously, an increase in average temperatures of one degree or less, does not cause an acceleration of evaporation from the flora, nor does that cause spontaneous combustion of either the accumulated dead vegetation or the aromatic eucalyptus oils.
The present global reactions are not a true reflection of the facts of why there are a large number of bushfires burning in this country.
No appeals from the Australian head of Government to the heads of any other country will make any difference to their policies or actions on GHG's or their industries.
The Australian Prime Minister may have appeared to have changed his opinion on the causes of the bushfires and AGW, but that is not in response to any scientific facts but as a measure to subdue the hysterical baying mobs who are attempting to pervert democracy and science.
You may like to read the piece published today from Don Aitkin for balanced perspective on the recent situation. Some comments from other commentators are also relevant.
Posted by Jay Cee Ess, Friday, 17 January 2020 11:47:32 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
The sun rises and sets every day. The tides go in and out every day. The planet warms and cools, warms and cools, in regular, repeating patterns, roughly every 1000 years, and there is not a single, solitary climate scientist who does not know that.

The last warming period was 1000 years ago, and it was called the Medieval Warm period. 1000 years before that, the Roman Warm period. A thousand years before that, the Egyptian warm period. 1000 years befor that, the Sumerian warm period. 1000 years before that, the Minoan Warm period. Between these warming periods were cooling periods. The modern world is emerging from the Little Ice Age 500 years ago and we are living in just another warming period, which only differs from thousands of warming periods that preceded it by coinciding with the industrialisation of the human race.

Could increased CO2 emissions exacerbate this warming period to any significant degree? Possibly. But until we can ascertain if it does and to what possible degree it is significant, it is absolute insanity to destroy our economies to the extent that we will destroy our own civilisation.

This entire "the end is nigh" religion is being pushed by vested interests who know which emotional buttons to push which will manipulate the "world saver" mob. These include almost the whole climate science leadership who see that promoting this hoax will increase the importance of their obscure science, massively increase it's funding, and allow them to dictate to governments about policy. Governments love HIGW as it gives them an excuse to massively increase taxes and allows them tom increase power and control over their own populations.

This has ben exacerbated by a fake news press more concerned with selling their media by focussing on catastrophe news than unbiased reportage.
HIGW has also been a cause celebre' for the always whining educated elite class who's reflexive opposition to mainstream thought is their most distinguishing feature. Once again, they can strut and virtue signal, and pretend that they are the smart ones while the rest of society are idiots.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 18 January 2020 6:10:14 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
LEGO,

I basically agree with what you're saying here.

But you got the order of your warm periods a little astray.Try this..

First Atlantic Warm Period about 7750 BC
Second Atlantic Warm Period about 7000 BC
First Saharan Warm period about 5800 BC
Second Saharan Warm Period about 5000 BC
Egyptian Warm period about 3200 BC
Sumerian Warm Period about 2200 BC
Minoan Warm Period about 1200 BC
Roman Warm Period about 0 BC
Medieval Warm Period about 1000 AD
Modern Warm Period about 2000 AD

It should be noted that each of these warming phases coincided with and probably initiated significant advances in man's development and well-being. Most of the great civilisations of the past rose as the temperatures rose and declined as cooling phases took hold.

There is ample evidence that the decline of Rome was at least partially caused by a decline in climate conditions. Equally there is good evidence that the fall of the Bronze Age societies resulted from a weakening of those societies in a cooling climate followed by invasion by peoples retreating from cold northern environs.

So, warming good. Cooling bad
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 18 January 2020 10:05:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mhaze & LEGO, I agree with you both except I think 1000 years is too
long. The best period I have locked onto is 600 years.
The problem is it will almost certainly be a sine wave and it will be
difficult to tell just when the peak occurred because in our time
scale the top and bottom will look flat.
The Vikings arrived in Greenland in 985 and left about 1415.
The peak was probably in the earlier part of that time as it would
have been well underway by the time the Viking found it to be a good place to live.
The coldest part of the Maunder minimum seems to have been around
1775 and the last London Ice Festival was in 1814.
300 years on from then gives about now, but the Turku group suggest
the peak was 1995. But in the scale we are talking about what is 50 years ? Nothing.
Also because it requires the logical ANDing of several factors it may
not occur at exactly the same time each time. There could be an eleven
year shift either way. The sunspot cycle is 11 years.
Your thoughts please, I have been in the wilderness on this.
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 18 January 2020 2:09:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Mhaze or the correction. I will re study my research and verify what you have written, which is probably correct and does not essentially refute my argument.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 18 January 2020 2:20:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,

The 1000 year figure is very rough. I don't think anyone's suggesting it a hard and fast cycle. Its just that the paleo data and historic data have these rough 1000 year cycles.

But for a start the margin of error in the paleo data is around 300 years. That's according to Marcott who cautioned that the 'resolution' of the data was at best 120 years for more recent paleo records and 300 years for older records.

So, if, for example, the paleo record shows the Minoan WP peaking around 1300BC that could mean the actual date was closer to 1500BC or 1000BC. We know a bit about the societies that grew duing that period and their start and end dates, but those dates don't necessarily correspond to the climate dates. We know virtually down to the year when the Bronze Age societies collapsed, but that date doesn't necessarily match the end of the WP.

While many of the events that cause these cycles are reasonably rhythmic, not all are. For example one of the features of Svensmark's theory is that the volume of galactic waves coming in are not constant but vary as the solar systems moves around the galactic centre. This, he opines, causes warming and cooling events to vary in intensity.

So, on average, the warming events happen around every 1000 years but that's just a very rough estimate. That they occur is beyond doubt but when and how often they occur and their duration is still very much guess work.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 18 January 2020 3:33:02 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
Here is a contrary post on the Medieval warming in Greenland.

http://tinyurl.com/y8jxt2xy

This believes that they did not leave because of the wx but because
the young people got bored ! Best reason I have heard knowing our young people !
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 18 January 2020 3:44:09 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
Mhaze, re solar systems movig around the galaxy, wouldn't that be on
an enormous time scale and we are looking probably at less than 1 degree of angle for our time scale ?

Anyway very interesting.
I have been looking for a Linux program for Fourier Analysis and there
are several available. I would need one that can take a spreadsheet
input of time/temperature and I do not know if the ones that are used
are freely available, they might be held close to the academic chest.
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 18 January 2020 9:18:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, I just popped in to see how all the Deniers were 'coping' with this worst drought, worst temperatures, and worst fire season on record. And with the fact that an article at Online Opinion DARED to express some confidence in the Climate Science as verified by EVERY NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ON THE PLANET.

AND WHAT DID I FIND?

The same bunch of sad old anti-science grandpappy's shouting "NO IT ISN'T, NO IT ISN'T!" into their echo-chamber, spittle landing on everyone around them that might actually respect the scientific process, and damaging their armchairs as they slap their arms down emphatically on each beat of their chant.

Chant away old boys. In just a few years half of you will have died and the other half will see these ENTIRELY NEW MEGA-FIRES returning with such ferocity that even you Denialists will start to suspect that you're WRONG to think you know more than EVERY NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ON THE PLANET!

So stop getting naked and rubbing yourselves in peanut butter and chanting your silly ditties, and start reading the science. Or your children and grandchildren will just remember you as one of those tinfoil hat crazies, and spit on your grave.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 19 January 2020 11:43:00 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
For those interested in looking at another cause of global warming
you might find this interesting;

http://tinyurl.com/y7lxylnz
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 19 January 2020 1:19:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kulaks got the blame back then.
Posted by jamo, Sunday, 19 January 2020 1:26:27 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
Bazz,

They are interesting causes you have brought to our attention.

Unfortunately Soot 'Beam up me Scotty' Morrison the great climate change warrior we all now know he is (I think since after the Newspoll last week showing him now less popular the Albinese) just cannot do anything to alter or stop these sorts of things.

Fortunately though Soot is in a position to put pressure on the big greenhouse gas emitters to reduce their emissions to a level that will turn back the clock on climate change and prevent Australia from being the constant victim of global warming.

Bazz, old mate ......... are you willing to give Soot a chance? Are you willing to let him have a go? Come on Bazz, do it for the team (being all those LNP born-again climate change warriors.)

You don't want Soot to fall on his face and have someone say something like "I won't say I could have done better than Soot but I definitely couldn't have done any FN worse!"
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 19 January 2020 1:49:09 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
Scientists don't have the answer otherwise they'd be bleating overpopulation instead of Global warming !
Posted by individual, Sunday, 19 January 2020 3:08:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
individual,

Scientists don't have the answers to what? What are you talking about?

I hope you haven't been getting into the Bundies & Coke with Hasbeen again!
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 19 January 2020 3:26:20 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 Bazz,

Linking to an article by Don Easterbook? Really?

This is one of his quotes;

"CO2 cannot possibly cause global warming.”

Such a denial of the science puts this bloke in the crackpot cohort unfortunately. Do you have anyone with a little more credibility for us?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 19 January 2020 3:27:56 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,

I do! I have someone who is more credible than Don Easterbook.

You guessed it! It's Soot 'Beam up me Scotty' Morrison.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 19 January 2020 3:33:01 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
"Scientists don't have the answer otherwise they'd be bleating overpopulation instead of Global warming!"

Um, listen silly!

Global warming is one problem.
Overpopulation is another.
It's not hard! (Slaps hand to forehead!)

And as far as *social* scientists go, the United Nations have studied population growth and guess what they've found, what simple metric they've measured that makes the key variable in societies where populations grow and other populations stabilise?

Education. If you educate and empower little girls as they grow up, they'll be more likely to value some career time and limit how many kids they have. It's such a strong rule, that every 3 years education that a little girl in a developing country receives means she'll have one less kid!

Now, it's more complicated than that because as a society becomes wealthy enough to afford to let the kids move off the subsistence farm and into the local school, they're also more likely to have clean water and health infrastructure. The subsistence farmer parents are more sure to have all their children actually survive childhood, and not get wiped out by some diseases of poverty in dirty water, etc. Also, if the state can provide some small measure of old aged pension (and it doesn't have to be a lot as Kerala, India shows), it also helps the poor not see their kids as their superannuation fund that's going to look after them when they're old.

Education + a little old aged pension. Who could argue against those? You can campaign for population stabilisation without EVER mentioning the over-emotive "P" word by name!

UN Links and stuff here http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/reduce/
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 19 January 2020 3:51:23 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
Hi Max,

Yes, you're right. See also this UN set of documents on the subject:

http://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth#

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Sunday, 19 January 2020 5:29:26 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
"Linking to an article by Don Easterbook? Really?"

This constant desire to reject the message because you don't like the messenger is the opposite of unbiased investigation.

The Easterbrook article is choca-block with data. But somehow the data is wrong because the messenger elsewhere has said things SR doesn't like.

The data is denied because the messenger is disliked. Yet,somehow, others are the deniers.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 19 January 2020 6:05:36 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
Global warming is one problem.
Overpopulation is another.
It's not hard! (Slaps hand to forehead!)
Max Green,
The latter is contributing to the former, Aren't you constantly on about the Govt should be doing "something" about Climate Change ?
Doh !
If you think the problems facing our Environment from Consumerism can be categorised than you're more insipid than I thought you were !
We could address it all by starting with a National Service to curb the dumbing !
Posted by individual, Sunday, 19 January 2020 7:00:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mr Green, I am so glad that you popped in to see how us deniers are coping. We are coping extremely well, thank you. Only thirty years ago us deniers were written off as cranks akin to holocaust deniers, but now our side is now going from strength to strength with reasoned arguments. Your side, however, can only resort to getting brain washed Komsomol educated school kids to super glue themselves to busy roadways in peak hour in order to get attention. How to win friends and influence people. Not.

You alarmists blew it. 40 years of making hysterical "the end is nigh" predictions, meant to happen in only a decade or so which never eventuated, began the process of the public disbelieving the self interested government funded climate scientists and instead seriously listening with open minds to the other side.

And your penchant for blaming every single extreme weather event on HIGW is another factor in your sides eroding credibility. Such finger pointing may impress adolescents and those who have a compulsive psychological need to believe that they are smarter and more morally pure than everybody else in society, but it does not impress older and wiser people who know that these weather events are cyclical and quite normal.

At least the left is no longer blaming extreme weather events on atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs. US, French, and British bombs, anyway. Soviet bombs were peace loving.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 19 January 2020 7:13:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are the bushfires a result of climate warming?

Given that bushfires have occurred regularly through history the answer can only be an emphatic No!

Is climate change a contributor to the severity? Certainly.
Are there other contributors to the fires' severity? Absolutely (e.g. blocking of back burning and fuel reduction by the greens.)
What is Australia's contribution to climate change? Little to nothing.
If Australia reduced emissions to zero by 2030 what difference would this make? Little to nothing.

Conclusion:
If climate change is happening and we have little to no control over it, the prime focus should be risk mitigate, so while taking a pragmatic approach to reducing emissions the prime focus should on mitigating the effects of climate change i.e.:
1 - reducing fuel load by back burning etc,
2 - allowing homeowners to create a safety break of up to 30m between their properties and the bush.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 20 January 2020 6:13:53 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
Shadow Minister,

It's easy to tell that you are an engineer.

This is one of the big problems with people like engineers who are vocationally trained and are dependent on rote learning skills instead of having critical thinking skills. I suggest you stick to doing your chores as a mindless drone and leave figuring out how the world works to the scholars and scientists who are appropriately trained.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 20 January 2020 6:59:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay Cee Ess,
if you're going to contest the known radiative heat trapping properties of CO2 JUST BECAUSE I linked to a cool youtube that shows it, then you're beyond help. I just don’t CARE if they pumped that tube up to 100% CO2, in fact, they probably did! It was for illustration purposes only! It SHOWS what CO2 does. Look up "illustration" in your dictionary. The science of CO2’s heat trapping capabilities goes back to Eunice Foote 163 years ago. It’s something you can look up in century old physics book. This is known. This is the way.

LEGO, Individual, MHaze,and all Deniers!
(Shakes head.) When did accepting SCIENCE become so optional in this dumbass culture? I'm just amazed how highly you all value each other’s ‘opinions’ rather than spanking them for being so stupid and feeling all entitled about their precious opinions. You're like Gollum, sitting there worshipping the Precious opinions. It's not my fault you think Don is super-sleuth super-hero busting a worldwide conspiracy involving EVERY NATIONAL SCIENCE ACADEMY ON THE PLANET. But hey, if that's your worldview, just make sure you turn your tinfoil hat up to 11 as I’m projecting my brainwaves to lull you all into a false sense of security!
You guys belong in a Flat-Earth convention. You’re denying the KNOWN physics of CO2, the known math of the Radiative Forcing Equation, the years and years of Climate Sensitivity studies converging on 3 degrees per doubling of CO2, the obvious signs from nature like retreating ice caps and glaciers, expanding hotter seasons, hotter nights, and more intense bushfire seasons as predicted EXACTLY by the Garnaut report.
And what are Don’s “many points” that he raises? The same boring old crap. I’m just glad Peter Bowden has the epistemological humility to admit he’s not an expert, but it seems the experts agree. You guys that sit around congratulating each other on ‘opinions’ without actual evidence are just sad little internet trolls telling global conspiracy ghost stories to each other around this virtual campfire. You’re deluded Boy Scouts, and truly need help.
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 20 January 2020 7:23:26 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
When did accepting SCIENCE become so optional in this dumbass culture?
Max green,
I think it all started when people became aware of the many dumbass pseudo intellectuals started to call themselves scientists & write mindless articles.
Posted by individual, Monday, 20 January 2020 7:33:42 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
"Are the bushfires a result of climate warming?"

If (and only IF) they ARE a result of climate warming;

Then climate warming would still be no more responsible
Than 'incompetence of government'
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 20 January 2020 8:06:21 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
Max, the fact that you place any credence in that video shows that you are science illiterate and don't understand the importance of scientific principles.
For that to be anything other than a throw away party trick, the following need to be included: Concentration of CO2 within the tube at all points of the demonstration, the actual temperature rise within the tube as it "traps" heat. For it to be relevant to the atmosphere of this planet and "global warming", it would need to show this identifiable behaviour with a concentration of no more than 0.08%.
In real terms, the "cool" Youtube does not show any heat trapping behaviour of CO2. It is a "snake oil" demonstration in the true tradition of their old school charlatans.
Posted by Jay Cee Ess, Monday, 20 January 2020 8:26:13 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
Let me guess, it's this way because "You have spoken?" ;-)

You avoided everything else I said like CO2's heat trapping properties that you can look up in century old physics textbooks. Just thought you'd sidestep that Inconvenient Truth did you?

Joseph Fourier discovered how the air traps heat in the 1820s
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/how-joseph-fourier-discovered-the-greenhouse-effect-1.3824189

In 1856 Eunice Foote discovered which gas trapped the most heat. "Foote conducted a series of experiments that demonstrated the interactions of the sun's rays on different gases. She used an air pump, four thermometers, and two glass cylinders. First she placed two thermometers in each cylinder, then by using the air pump, she evacuated the air from one cylinder and compressed it in the other. Allowing both cylinders to reach the same temperature, she placed the cylinders in the sunlight to measure temperature variance once heated and under different moisture conditions. She performed this experiment on CO
2, common air, and hydrogen.[9] Of the gases she tested, Foote concluded that carbonic acid (CO
2) trapped the most heat, reaching a temperature of 125 °F (52 °C).[10] Looking to the history of the Earth, Foote theorized that "An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature; and if, as some suppose, at one period of its history, the air had mixed with it a larger proportion than at present, an increased temperature from its own action, as well as from increased weight, must have necessarily resulted."[11][12]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Newton_Foote

Again, I only offered the candle demonstration as an ILLUSTRATION! Want another? Here's Mythbusters. 3 minutes. My understanding was the gas official was to keep it to atmospheric levels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Need more? Go on wikipedia, visit a physics lab, do whatever it takes to man up and accept something the human race has known for 163 years. I'm not going to debate this, it's childish.
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 20 January 2020 8:59:23 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
Mr 0,

It is easy to see that your vocational training is in the humanities because your version of critical thinking is basically to whinge and criticise without adding anything of value.

I would suggest that you leave this topic to the scientists and engineers that actually understand the subject and go back to flipping burgers.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 20 January 2020 1:58:47 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 willackers, Max, lets look at climate scientists and their predictions.

Quoting "European scientists" in 2007, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be "ice free" by 2013. The Arctic ice cap grew by 533,000 square miles between August 2012 and August 2013.

NASA's James Hanson said that "Manhatten would be underwater by 2008."

More conservative, the BBC quoted "European scientists" who predicted that New Orleans and Miami would be underwater by 2014.

Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery's 2006 prediction that "the dams will, never fill again" looks funny when the dams did fill again and they drowned Brisbane and Townsville.

"Entire nations" were not "wiped off the Earth by 2000", predicted by Noel Brown, the director of the UN Environment Program in 1989.

First IPCC meeting was held in 1988 in Europe, during the one of the worst snow storms that Europe had ever recorded.

On 16th of October, 2008 the British parliament passed the British Climate Change Act, which is the most expensive piece of legislation it has ever passed, committing the UK to cut emissions of CO2 by 80%, at the cost of some $400 billion pounds. On that very day it snowed in London in October, for the first time since 1934

Climate "Scientist" Dr David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University. (you remember them, the Climategate guys) predicted that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

On November 4, 1998, the BBC, quoting "European scientists", claimed that Italian ski fields would snow free by 2008, while skiing in Germany would be "impossible" as the snow would simply fall as rain.

In February 2019, the USA, all of Europe, and Russia were all up to their eyeballs in snow. It was even snowing in Los Angeles, which it just like saying is snowing in Brisbane.

When somebody says that they are experts, Max, and they then make predictions based upon their "expert" scientific knowledge which turn out to be laughably inaccurate, a fair minded person would probably conclude that they don't have a clue about what they are talking about.
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 20 January 2020 6:08:16 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
Leo, in future I'll only deal with copy and paste assertions like that when you provide me with every link, otherwise I know you've just copied and pasted from some Dumbass Denier website somewhere and don't even know WHAT you're copying and pasting!

1. So who were those "European scientists" in 2007?

2. NASA's James Hanson said that "Manhatten would be underwater by 2008." Show me where?

3. "European scientists" who predicted that New Orleans and Miami would be underwater by 2014. Who? IPCC, or nutters?

4. "Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery's 2006 prediction that "the dams will, never fill again" —
First, exactly which city was he talking about?
Second, the guy is a zoologist and environmental writer prone to hyperbole, to communicate.
Third, Perth NEVER WOULD fill again and needed to install a Desal to cope with the apparently permanent 20% reduction in rainfall. Hello, is this thing on? You reading this? That's why it's important you find out what city he was talking about, because at least ONE of his predictions about city dams came damn true!

5. "Entire nations" were not "wiped off the Earth by 2000"
Oh my oh my! Seriously? Dude, this is a quote from a spokesperson and NOT the scientists involved, who directly contradicted him! This isn't against the science, but whackos that sometimes appear in any large enough movement or organisation! Seriously, did you ever ask yourself which scientist/s he Noel Brown was quoting? No? Because you just copied and pasted it because it is comforting to your worldview? Yeah, I understand. No really, I do!
http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nations-vanish-global-warming/
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 20 January 2020 7:54:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
6. First IPCC meeting was held in 1988 in Europe, during the one of the worst snow storms that Europe had ever recorded.
This FAILS to understand the difference between weather and climate, and way before climate changes were predicted to hit. But compare Garnaut's predictions of 12 years ago to this last year's fire season? Hmmmmm?

7. 2008 the British Climate Change Act...
They should have just mass produced nukes like the French did and they'd have some of the cheapest cleanest most reliable power in Europe, like the French do.

8. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
It's not a FAILED PREDICTION if there's no EXPIRY DATE on it is it?

9. "European scientists", claimed that Italian ski fields would snow free by 2008:
again who? What link?

10. In February 2019, the USA, all of Europe, and Russia were all up to their eyeballs in snow. It was even snowing in Los Angeles, which it just like saying is snowing in Brisbane.
Doesn't understand that the reducing temperature gradient between the Arctic and equator has destabilised the Jet Stream so that sometimes in pockets in a warming world, weird counter-intuitive things like some areas getting COLDER because the Jet Stream is 'Drunk on climate change' and wandered too far south is actually a thing explained by the physics. Again, not my problem this copy and paste list of yours is retarded and doesn't know some of the basic science. I'm a humanities major that didn't do High School physics or chemistry, and even I know this!
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 20 January 2020 7:54:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, I got you Max. I must validate everything that I write, but that does not apply to you? I get most of my information from "Dumbass Denier" websites just like you get most of your information from Dumbass Climate Cultist websites. The most interesting aspect of youtube videos pertaining to climate change was that only five years ago, youtube was awash with Climate Cultist websites, and nary a sceptic site could be found. Now youtube has hundreds of "Dumbass Denier" sites which indicates to me that the worm has turned.

Since I knew little about climate change except for what I read in history books (Plutarch wrote that most Romans agreed that the climate was getting warmer), I kept right out of the debate until I had some more information. I began watching Youtube video's from both sides, and my opinion was that the "Dumbass Denier" sites were much more convincing. Especially since the Climate Cultist presenters usually exhibited the same supercilious, superior attitude that you do, while submitting "facts" and arguments which even a dumbass electrician like me could punch holes in.

One "Dumbass Denier" site informed me of something I could relate too, that the earth warmed and cooled in roughly 1000 year regular cycles. I knew this must be true because my reading of history had informed me that naturally occurring cyclical climate changes had occurred during human history, which had serious effects upon the history of mankind.

All it took was a simple Google search involving "Photos, temperature graphs, 10,000 years", and whadya know? There were graphs aplenty all showing more or less the same thing. The earth warms and cools in regular cycles and our present warming period is only different to every other regularly occurring warming period in that it coincided with the industrialisation of the human race.

Another significant factor convincing me that the Climate Cultists are wrong, is that HIGW is a position pushed by the educated, middle class, socialite socialists, who from my perspective, always manage to get everything backwards as some sort of class fashion statement.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 6:59:07 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
Sorry, but where are the sources to your crap assertions above? If you're going to indulge in puerile copy and paste exercises, I WILL call you on it and ask you to at least link to your sources. "Show your work" as they used to say in High School.
>Now youtube has hundreds of "Dumbass Denier" sites which indicates to me that the worm has turned.
That's funny. So because Climate Skeptics are circulating the same top 50 Denialist hymns around ever more frantically as we start to SEE climate change burn down Australia, therefore the worm has turned?
Oh, and on your 1000-year theory? Yeah, I'm really going to trust the half-baked theories of an amateur history pundit I met on the net over professional climatologists. &#128521; Especially if that history fan tells me he’s developed his OWN version of THE most commonly sung Denier Hymn, “Climate’s changed before.” Check the thermometer graph over to the left here. https://skepticalscience.com/


You’ve literally just quoted the top of the charts! Thought of that all by yourself did ya? &#128521;
The climate has changed before? DER!
Climate scientists study this all the time. Paleoclimate helps us establish the climate sensitivity to CO2 and is a bedrock to modern climate science. Rather than some mystery that climatologists have somehow accidentally overlooked, paleoclimate is one of the foundations!
http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf
As well as observation of physics and computer models the IPCC studies ancient climate to calibrate and test their computer models. There are a few uncertainties, but that's science and they are making advances all the time. Basically, asserting that "The climate has changed before!" as some sort of objection to climate science shows an incredible ignorance of the whole topic. The IPCC know this, and are studying the various causes and shifts.
http://skepticalscience.com/humans_survived_previous_changes.html

And in deep paleoclimate history, super-greenhouses with dead, anoxic oceans are the stuff of nightmares.

Just go tell a climatologist that "Well, the climate's changed before you know!?" and they'll laugh in your face.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 7:38:55 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
Ah, LEGO, a tradesman, displays a clear division in the political spectrum.
Those with desirable valuable skills and those without.
Those without are drawn toward expressing concern for subjects such as environment and social justice. It's about the need to be "valued".
Fear of missing out where individuals are free to choose drives the yearning for a large all encompassing state where they might be provided a place.
The failings environmentalist inspired state control is on full display with the fires. Hence the panic and desperation to blame it all on CC.

Back to the original question of the discussion. No the fires aren't the result of climate warming. The issue is the dangerously increasing fuel loads a result of well intended but poorly thought through laws and policy.
What other outcome could be expected from adoption of the ideas of the intrinsically impractical?
Posted by jamo, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 9:45:56 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
To Max.

Then call me out. I submitted ten examples ( I have many more) of fanciful "scientific" predictions from climate "scientists" which were laughably wrong. Most of those examples are well publicised common knowledge, and you know it. I don't need to give verifications for the Cultists claims of cities being submerged, polar bars drowning, or the Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery's notorious claim that "the dams will never fill again". It all has been well publicised in the media for years, and our readers know it. Everybody knows that the Himalayan glaciers did not melt and the Arctic is not ice free. They know that the USA, Europe, and Russia were drowned in snow in 2019, and the ski resorts are still running.

As an experienced debater, I know what you are doing. Unwilling to focus upon the fact that the so called "scientists", who claim to be experts, are making predictions that are demonstrably wrong, you instead throw red herrings by demanding I verify what you, and everybody else, already knows is correct. Prevaricating only works for so long. You would be better off admitting that I have a valid point, and retreat to a more defensible position.

The planet warms and cools, warms and cools, in repeating cycles. That is the historical record, and the cultists can not air brush that undeniable and inconvenient truth away. The earth is in a warming period right now, and if the previous 9 warming periods are a guide, the planet will warm another 2 degrees before we plunge into a serious ice age. You could argue that CO2 emissions might exacerbate that warming trend. But you can not claim that the earth's warming climate is significantly affected by human CO2 emissions unless you prove it.

My proof is in the pudding. The scientists have been making ridiculous claims that unless the world changes it's ways, (meaning, destroy capitalism) starting RIGHT NOW, the earth is going to turn into something resembling Venus. So far, their numerous "expert" predictions have been laughably wrong. Conclusion? They don't know what they are talking about
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 10:11:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lego,

How are you going old chum? Up to your old tricks I see. Let's have a look at your list of 'alarmist climate scientists'.

Well the first doesn't actually mention any by name so it is a little hard to attribute any quotes so let's deal with the second.

You claimed in it that “NASA's James Hanson said that "Manhatten would be underwater by 2008."”

He said no such thing. This is pure distortion from an interview done in 1988 which the reporter describes as thus;

“When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I’d been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn’t asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn’t an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio­­n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm.”

Since then various denier websites had done a Chinese whispers number on it and the 40 years became 20 without a mention of the doubling of CO2.

And here you are, helping hype up predictions through disinformation. It is you lot who should be called out as the true alarmists.

Shame.

Now is there another on your list you wish to hang your hat on? More than happy to dissect any you want to put forward.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 10:36:21 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
Hey Lego, as an electrician you obviously have to have enough math to understand the scam. These poor fools like Mr Green, obviously detailed by some lefty/green group to be this quarters fool attempting to justify the unjustifiable is floundering with something he can't understand.

It is interesting that in my youth, [where's my violin], kids straight from junior high school could easily manage an electrical apprenticeship math. Today senior high high graduates with very high achiever math, require a remedial math course to manage the the apprenticeship math.

Today we have environmental science graduates, with a bachelor of science degree who could not make change from a $5 bus ticket from a $10 note, with out a calculator. So don't be too hard on the Mr Greens, & SRs of this world, they aren't capable of understanding the theory, or the math, so have only rhetoric or prose to try to hide their ignorance.

Just like that fool Shorten, who did not know what red Julia said, but supported it completely, these fools have been told what to believe, & boy aren't they dedicated in that.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 11:12:33 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
Hi Steelie.

Is the climate changing? Answer, Yes. The climate has always changed. Specifically, our planet warms and cools, warms and cools, in regular, cyclic events roughly every 1000 years. The last warming period was the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago, followed by cooling in the Little Ice Age, 500 years ago. Our planet is now in another scheduled warming period. If the last 9 warming periods are a reliable guide to our present warming period (they should be) then our planet will warm another 2 degrees before it reverses into a serious ice age.

And you know what? There is not a single, solitary climate scientist who does not know that. It is part of the historical record, and in our present free democratic society, the State can not just air brush the historical record away.

The planet it warming. I don't even know why the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, or NOAA are "adjusting" the figures to prove it is warming. I suspect it is because it is not warming fast enough to scare entire populations to turn away from free market democracies, and instead submit to socialist totalitarian control.

Whether climate change has anything to do with our present bushfire crisis is something that nobody can answer. Increased temperatures might cause increased desertification, or it might cause increased precipitation through increased evaporation. Or it might be that this is just another bad drought and bushfire season of which Australia has already had plenty.

The Big Lie being propagated to naive and easily led people like your good self, is that climate change is caused by increased human induced atmospheric CO2. That is total bunkum. If anthropogenic CO2 is the main reason for climate change, then what anthropogenic increases in CO2 caused the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, or every other preceding warm period going back millions of years??

HIGW is the biggest hoax since The Stolen Generations, or Hitler's claim that the Jews burned down the Reichstag. And you fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 12:46:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO:

>" If anthropogenic CO2 is the main reason for climate change, then what anthropogenic increases in CO2 caused the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, or every other preceding warm period going back millions of years??"

First, you haven't proposed a method or causation for these warming periods. They 'just happen' in your story.

Second, the Roman warming isn't really that warm. Look up the temperature proxies. I mean, did you even start with wikipedia?

_______________________

Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if they were planted, but that they could not set fruit there. That is the case today, which suggests that South Aegean mean summer temperatures in the 4th and 5th centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
_______________________

Third, note, it's not as warm as today then.

Fourth, it's NOT GLOBAL.

Fifth, it was variations in the sun.

Sixth, it's isn't the sun today, as they've studied that. The sun's activity was decreasing late last century while the planet was cooking. (Imagine that, it's only consistent with the KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS of CO2 and the Radiative Forcing Equation.)

Seventh, GROW UP!

Dude, if you haven't even bothered to read the WIKI in the subject then your credibility is shot. As the reporter said of the Hindenburg, "Oh the humanity!"
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 1:23:48 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
"Since then various denier websites had done a Chinese whispers number on it and the 40 years became 20 without a mention of the doubling of CO2."

Actually, that's not true. What actually happened is that the interviewer said 20 years. At the time no one disputed the point. Only when the 20 years was approaching and it was clear the predictions were utterly laughably wrong did the author suddenly realise that he got it wrong and the prediction was 40 years. I imagine someone talking to the author ..."Nice career you've go there..it'd be a shame to loose it. Now was it 20 or 40 years?"

So contra SR's made-up assertions, it wasn't "denier websites" wot done it. In SR world, even when its clear the so-called deniers were innocent, they're guilty because....reasons.

So the author now admits to getting it wrong. I wonder what'll happen when the 40 year anniversary approaches and the predictions remain laughably wrong. A job for Winston Smith I expect.

Meanwhile it'd be interesting to find out how SR got it wrong. Did he stop looking once he'd found a version of the fable that he liked (SR does that a lot) or did he know the truth and just hoped to slip it through anyway. I guess we'll never know.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 1:28:12 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
Just a word of warning LEGO.

Don't bother getting into an argument with Max about the various warm periods. He doesn't want them to be true, so refuses to accept any data that shows they are true.

The last time I discussed it with him I showed him a large number of papers from China and elsewhere that showed that the Medieval WP and Roman WP were real. His response? He simply refused to look at those papers. Simply refused!! And continued pretending there was no data about the RWP and MWP being global.

My kids have a book about a chap who says all flowers are red. He makes the claim by refusing to see or acknowledge any non-red flowers.

Ditto re Max's climate hysteria.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 2:04:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lego,

What on earth does the Medieval Warming period have to do with our current situation?

We are marching toward a doubling of CO2 levels in our atmosphere due to human activities and you need to come up with a decent explanation as to why such a raising the concentration of the second most important green house gas will not result in a warming planet.

If you want to deny the physics then go ahead but that is where most thinking people will stop listening to you. If you want to accept the physics but put the position that other factors were having a negative impact on global temperatures thus the projected warming will not be significant then put your case.

You failed to deliver which of your list we should review next.

Dear mhaze,

Yes it appears the interviewer admits he got it wrong when being interviewed for the Salon magazine;

“Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2. Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message:”
““I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later probably because I’d been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.“”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

Nothing to do with Hansen.

But like you Watts leaves out the doubling of CO2 when discussing this. Is this kind of deception all that you guys have left? Shame.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 2:29:02 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
Well somewhere in there we have an admission from SR that he was wrong when he said "various denier websites " were responsible for the 20 year / 40 year 'error'. Not that you'll find an admission since that not SR's style. In SR-land error is a four letter word when it applies to him.

But he's very good at that the admission/non-admission of error. He should be because he has lots of practice. Quite why its impossible to just own up and move on is not apparent.

Of coarse we'll never find out if he was wrong through ignorance or malice. I vote all-of-the-above.

Part of technique is to immediately try to change the subject. So he wants to move onto some other supposed nefariousness on my part. I'll probably address that at some point, but just now I don't want to help his muddy-the-water efforts. Let the 'error' (if that's what it was) dangle there for a while.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 5:47:41 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 Steelie

Planet Earth is undergoing yet another scheduled warming period which occurs in roughly 1000 year intervals, since forever. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions obviously made no contribution to untold thousands of global warming periods for hundreds of millions of years. But today, when the Earth is undergoing it's present scheduled warming period, you and your Hare Krishna cultist friends think that it must all be caused by human released CO2.

Google "Photos, global temperatures, 600 million years" and look at the graph. For 570 million years there was no causal link between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. There were times when CO2 was significantly increasing, probably caused by volcanic outgassing, and temperatures were decreasing. And there were times when CO2 was significantly decreasing, and temperatures were increasing.

The only statistically valid relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures occurs when CO2 levels are at the historically extremely low levels that they are today. Atmospheric CO2 levels have never been so low and plant life on Earth was in real danger of choking had it continued it's downward spiral. Agronomists are now talking about "the greening of the earth" caused by increasing CO2 levels.

The reason why there is a direct relationship between CO2 levels at very low concentrations and global temperatures, is because the oceans hold 50 times more dissolved CO2 than the atmosphere. Cold water holds more CO2, and warm water less. So when global temperatures rise (or fall) because of the four Malkovich factors, or from solar intensity variations, ocean current variables, continental drift, cosmic ray intensities, changes in the earth's magnetic field, or meteor strikes, the warming oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere.

If CO2 was so important to global temperatures, then when rising temperatures caused the oceans to release more CO2, this would cause a temperature rise. Which would release more CO2, which would cause temperatures to rise again. That is a runaway greenhouse effect. And the fact that it has never happened in hundreds of millions of years validates the idea that rising CO2 levels have little significance to rising temperatures.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 6:48:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have recently read an article by a scientist that states that the
regular global warming did not occur everywhere on earth.
I have recently read an article by a scientist that states that the
regular global warming did occur everywhere on earth.

Now of course we have J. Kauppinen & P. Maimi saying that the IPCC
models are wrong because wrong weighting given to co2 as not enough
weighting given to clouds.
H. Masayuki & Y. Uena agreeing.
Kauppinen was a expert member of IPCC 24th report.
A real pile on to Kauppinen & Maimi is occurring so it may take some
time for the dust to settle. Sound a familiar technique ?
Just watch this space.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 8:04:51 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
LEGO,
you still have this huge snot-ball hanging on the side of your face.

"Gee willackers, Max, lets look at climate scientists and their predictions."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20693#364641

I answered many of the points, and then asked you to clarify which "European scientists" claimed extremist things. As in, where are your links and where is your evidence?
Please respond, or just admit you copied and pasted it all, and don't really know what you're talking about.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 8:28:09 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
MHAZE, long time buddy!
Smug: "No one did the maths. You just made it up. JUST MADE IT UP" http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

Certitude about the Climate Sensitivity models NOT having probability:

"Nowhere does anyone say they took the "highest probability", because they didn't because no such thing exists. Again, you just made it up although its probably you just failed to fathom the truth. The graph you think is a probability curve is in fact a histogram of simulation outcomes. The highest point isn't more probable than those around it,” http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

Both have the results of the models (math), limits, and probabilities. Indeed, if he’d bothered to even read the climate sensitivity wiki 3 years ago when he pretended to know all about the ECS/TCS debate, he would have seen the link to NASA which clearly shows the ‘right skewed’ probabilities with this great summary:
“…the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/what-if-global-warming-isnt-as-severe-as-predicted/

Let alone the IPCC spelling the probability range out around a 420 GT highest probability carbon allowance for 1.5 degrees at 66% probability, even as they also allow for a range 100 GT either side depending on how other things go!
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

So while MHAZE blusters and lies and tries to divert attention, we can all SEE what's happened here. There's no escaping it MHAZE, no matter how much you want to try and reframe what's happened. We can ALL suffer from overconfidence in things now and then. But we really should be adults and apologise when caught out. Otherwise it just looks bad, like a REAL case of Dunning Kruger's!
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/images/icon_link_grey.gif

So if that's how you judged Climate Sensitivity which is all about how paleoclimate assesses previous changes in the Earth's climate and temperature, how are you going to go this time? ;-)

Oh and just remember: your ally in hating-science LEGO doesn't even seem to have read the wiki on Roman warming which seems to have been a degree cooler than now.

Cooler than now.

Got that?
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 21 January 2020 8:33:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Max.

Charming metaphors you use.

"Global Warming May Hit Skiing." (November 2001) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1661704.stm

Which unfortunately for the BBC, was later contradicted by another one of it's January 2018 news reports, which rather strangely does not even mention global warming. (Gee, I wonder why?) Heavy Snow Cuts Off Ski resorts. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42577046

Now, I would like to investigate your sneering remark that I had obviously not consulted WIKI about the Roman Warm Period, and if I had, I would have discovered that the Roman Warm Period was 1 degree cooler than it is today. You were correct that I had not consulted WIKI, so I did so now. I found no reference to The Roman Warm Period being 1 degree cooler than today. But it did say (and I quote) that temperatures during the RWP were "basically the same as it was around AD 2000." Looks like you have some explaining to do?

Furthermore, while I regard WIKI as generally impartial and a source of reliable information, it's claim that temperatures during the RWP equated to today, does not conform with other sources.

Please Google
"Photos, Global Temperature variations over last 10,000 years."

You will find dozens of graphs pertaining to climate data for the last 10,000 years, and some of them are going to make you feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis. These graphs will clearly display that the previous cyclical 9 warming "optimums" were in fact 2 degrees WARMER than today. Imagine that? No coal fired power stations. No SUV's. No large scale steel or concrete manufacturing.

If you have any brains at all (debatable) then you can only conclude that human generated CO2 could not possibly have caused the regularly recurring climate changes in the past, and our present, right on schedule global warming is just another one of those recurring events. You could with reasonable validity argue that CO2 could exacerbate our present warming period and make it's temperature optimum warmer, and with reservations I might agree with you. But you can not claim that human induced CO2 is causing our present climate change
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 22 January 2020 7:44:24 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
wow, Max'es wikipedia article is hilarious. That anyone would think its even vaguely useful is hilarious-er. That anyone would even consider going to wikipedia on climate issues after the Connelley debacle is hilarious-est. Poor poor Max.

Let's look at the article he has placed his faith in.

First it says the RWP started in approximately 250BC. I think most people would put it closer to 200BC but let's go with 250BC.

They then quote from Theophrastus who died in 287BC...ie BEFORE the supposed start of the RWP. So whatever he writes is immaterial as concerns the RWP.

They then advise that the temperatures in the 5th and 4th century BC were "basically the same as it was around AD 2000" So BEFORE the start of the RWP, temperatures were the same as now. So, by deduction, temps IN the RWP were higher than now.

And then, to prove it was just a regional phenomena they talk about Florida!!. Sure they make the usual claim that it was just regional, but that's wikipedia for ya.

Then poor poor Max, who clearly didn't understand what all those pesky dates meant says " if you haven't even bothered to read the WIKI in the subject then your credibility is shot." That's fall of your chair funny. Max is quite the comedian.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 22 January 2020 10:41:57 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
Dear mhaze,

It really does piss me off that I have to type so slowly for you to wrap your head around this stuff.

Here is what I said;

Quote

He said no such thing. This is pure distortion from an interview done in 1988 which the reporter describes as thus;

“When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I’d been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn’t asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn’t an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio­­n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm.”

Since then various denier websites had done a Chinese whispers number on it and the 40 years became 20 without a mention of the doubling of CO2.

End quote.

Since when? Since the bloody quote I referenced from 2001. He corrected the record, WUWT also retracted their position.

Since that time “various denier websites had done a Chinese whispers number on it and the 40 years became 20 without a mention of the doubling of CO2.” as evidence by a repeat of it on this very forum.

How about you explain why is still has currency 20 years later?

Dear Lgo,

Still not prepared to vouch for any one of the other 'climate scientist alarmist' quotes? Come on buddy, there should be at least one.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 22 January 2020 1:17:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SR,

You don't need to type slowly. Just type honestly and all will be well.

"How about you explain why is still has currency 20 years later?"
Well clearly there are a lot of people just like you who see a half truth they like and run with it. So they see the 20 years story and don't bother checking it.

Care to explain, SR, how it is that the story that the 20 year number was the result of denier websites and chinese whispers (when it was the result of a supposed error by the original author) has currency among those of a certain leaning...like yourself. Was it the caused by alarmist websites spreading false rumour? Or just the result of bozos not bothering to check beyond what they want to be true?

You said the 20 year number came from denier websites. In fact it came from the alarmist author's 'error'. We all know it...why not just admit it and move on?

OK SR...I'll do you a favour and let you change the subject. Doubling of CO2 ie from 280ppm to 560.
In 1988, when the interview took place, there was general agreement that a doubling would occur within the next 3 or 4 decades. Note that Hansen doesn't demur when the interviewer talks of a doubling. But we're not within cooee of a doubling.

Your claim that "We are marching toward a doubling of CO2 levels" is true in the same way as my walking to the corner shop is marching toward Peking. Current CO2 levels are 413ppm..so not even half way in 160 years. Even at current rates it'll be ~2100AD before we get a doubling...assuming no new technology.

So Hansen accepted the likelihood of a doubling by 2028. Only out by 150%. Which makes it one of the more accurate alarmist predictions.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 22 January 2020 2:18:48 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
Hi Steelie, back for another beating? I see that you have deliberately avoided addressing the last post I directed at you. You really do not want to address the fact that the climate is changing because it has always changed. Roughly every thousand years it warms and cools, warms and cools. Our present warming period is right on schedule and is obviously a continuation of the same cycle.

Now, is any person with an IQ in double digits, (which obviously does not apply to you) would make the logical connection, that any phenomena which continuously repeats in regular cycles must have a common reason to do so. But not you. The earth can warm and cool roughly every thousand years since God Knows when, but whatever factors have caused this to happen could not apply to the latest manifestation of the recurring event.

Would you apply the same logic to tidal changes and the phases of the moon?

Great logic, Steelie. No wonder you are a HIGW believer. And I think BELIEF is the operative word here. You do not want to focus upon easily verifiable facts which you know will blow your silly little cultish belief system right out of the water. You want to believe. You need to believe. Your entire self image as a morally irreproachable being with above average intelligence would be smashed if you realised that you have backed the wrong horse. Worse still, it would mean admitting that your opponents are not as dumb as the peer group you aspire to join tell you we are, and that would be a particularly rotten piece of crow to eat.

Sorry, Steelie. You obviously have a problem with the fact that the climate changes in regular cycles and you will do anything to avoid it. It is your weakest link and you can bet I am going to keep sawing away at it.

Your fixation with my quotes I know is simply a misdirection from what you do not want to discuss. But here are some links to shut you up.

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/tim-flannery-failed-predictions/

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/slippery-when-wet-tim-flannerys-climate-warnings-questioned-after-recent-flooding/news-story/032676cb0c4bd1ba0e1e99bda904bca2?sv=b88b53b3a64b900159375cfe7ddb486b

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/flannery-says-it-again-the-dams-wont-fill/news-story/fc39cd244faba3e29b842e09e5b4dd5c

http://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/slippery-when-wet-tim-flannerys-climate-warnings-questioned-after-recent-flooding/news-story/032676cb0c4bd1ba0e1e99bda904bca2?sv=b88b53b3a64b900159375cfe7ddb486b
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 22 January 2020 2:43:25 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
For those who care but can't follow Max's convoluted screams about climate probabilities etc...a quick explanation.

A few years back Max was running around claiming that the 350.org people had done the maths and concluded that humankind could only burn a further 565gt of fossil fuels before something bad happened. He was ridiculing anyone who failed to understand the maths.
So I looked into it and found (1) no maths had been done and that (2) had it been done the result wouldn't have been an exact number but a rather wide range of potential answers.

Max spent the next two years trying to wriggle out of his error, meanwhile making a range of further errors, some rather comical.

And then finally he came up with the IPCC SPM report (http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf) which showed...
((1) no maths had been done but instead a series of climate models ran various scenarios and that
(2) the result wasn't an exact number but a rather wide range of potential answers...somewhere between 100Gt and 1000Gt.

So after two years Max finally reached the conclusion I'd original offered to him. And now, having found that what I original said was true, he claims vindication. Two years after saying I was wrong, he proves that I was right and thinks that makes him right.

Strange fellow is our Max.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 22 January 2020 2:45:10 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
Hi LEGO,
ROMAN WARMING?
I think you missed it: “Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if they were planted, but that they could not set fruit there. That is the case today, which suggests that South Aegean mean summer temperatures in the 4th and 5th centuries BC were WITHIN A DEGREE of modern temperatures.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

SKIING
You have an example of bad reporting. Something went wrong with the BCC, not the IPCC. They should have reported it like this: “In the late 1990s, this was possible in the Alps with natural snow in areas above 1200 meters of elevation. This level is expected to rise to a minimum altitude of 1500 meters with a warming of two degrees.”
http://www.downdays.eu/articles/climate-change-future-ski-resorts/

What do we expect from global warming? Less snow generally speaking. But remember a warmer atmosphere carries more water vapour, which if it wanders into the RIGHT AREA can increase LOCAL snowfall over previous norms because there’s simply more water in the air.
http://skepticalscience.com/Record-snowfall-disproves-global-warming.htm

I read the 2001 projections in 9.3 and can’t find any real projections for snow fields or ski slopes. It did, however, say: “Snow cover extent has decreased by about 10% since 1966.” Page 102.
Also note page 124 shows an INCREASE! “In recent decades, snowfall has also been heavier to the lee of the North American Great Lakes than earlier in the century (Leathers and Ellis, 1996). These findings are in line with observations from Canada and the former Soviet Union, reflecting a trend towards increased precipitation over the mid-latitude lands in the Northern Hemisphere (Groisman and Easterling, 1994; Brown and Goodison, 1996; Ye et al., 1998).”
http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf

Finally, what’s actually happening?
“The amount of snow in the western United States has seen an average drop of 41 percent since the early 1980s, according to research just published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. As a result, the snow season shrunk by 34 days.”
http://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/20/climate-change-is-taking-a-toll-on-the-20-billion-ski-industry.html

Lost skiing revenue has already cost America a billion p96
http://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 22 January 2020 3:17:32 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
MHAZE,
You insisted they had not 'done the math' to come up with an approximate number. The IPCC has actually done the math. It involves the known warming of an estimated 1.2 degrees per doubling for the raw increase in CO2. Then it involves the extra 2ish degrees per doubling from the Climate Sensitivity. That's where you insisted there was no probability from the models, and outright lied about how the IPCC had come up with their carbon budget range. That's when your Dunning Kruger's got too much for you, and you jumped up and down insisting there WAS NO PROBABILITY!

But rather than admit you were wrong, Black is white, up is down, right is wrong, and everyone but Mhaze is wrong.

Yeah mate, we're with ya! Anyone interested in the truth can go back to my links and study the conversation context.
And the CO2 range isn't that great, but is down to 420 GT highest probability carbon allowance for 1.5 degrees at 66% probability, even as they also allow for a range 100 GT either side depending on how other things go!
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

That's a bit different to 100-1000 range you're trying to project, but that's what you do isn't it? Lie and project?
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 22 January 2020 3:30:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lego,

Back for another beating? Hell mate I'm just standing by while you keep punching yourself in the face. You poor old thing. Unable to address a single thing I put to you. I fully agree there was a medieval warming period but we have no idea just how global it was. However I can't put is any better than what I did a couple of posts ago;

“What on earth does the Medieval Warming period have to do with our current situation?

We are marching toward a doubling of CO2 levels in our atmosphere due to human activities and you need to come up with a decent explanation as to why such a raising the concentration of the second most important green house gas will not result in a warming planet.

If you want to deny the physics then go ahead but that is where most thinking people will stop listening to you. If you want to accept the physics but put the position that other factors were having a negative impact on global temperatures thus the projected warming will not be significant then put your case.”

Now stump up for once.

As to Flannery you said “lets look at climate scientists and their predictions”. Flannery is a well respected scientist but he isn't a climate scientist.

What else you got?

Dear mhaze,

You asked “Care to explain, SR, how it is that the story that the 20 year number was the result of denier websites and chinese whispers”? Because 20 years after a rather innocuous statement in an interview was corrected it is still being bandied about on sites like this.

Do I really need to repeat this a third time to get you to understand a very simple point?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 22 January 2020 3:37:23 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
Hi Max. Got your confidence back again, I see? You have submitted six points to me, but I can only address one at the moment because of the accursed 350 word limit.

Did you look at the graphs I asked you to look at? No, of course you did not. The reason is, because you do not want to look at what you fear to see. If you had looked at the graphs, you would have seen in the headings for these graphs said "GLOBAL TEMPERTURE VARIATIONS OVER THE LAST 10,000 YEARS" or GLOBAL TEMPERATURES LAST 10,000 YEARS", or "GLOBAL TEMPERATURES 2500 BC to 2000 AD"

Now,, you are pretty good at asking me to verify everything I write. So I am going to ask you politely to verify your assertion that the Roman WP and the Medieval WP were localised affairs. This because it is a crucial question. It is not like one of your misdirection questions that are simply trying run me in circles to stifle the debate. This is a big one.

I have a funny feeling that you have a lump in your guts right now, because you know you can not validate your claim. But my proof is in black and white. Just Google "photos, global temperatures, 10,000years."

My advice to you is that it is time to stop being nasty and instead start being a bit more humble. It will help when you finally figure out that you were wrong all along and you have been lied to. I promise I will not rub it in. I would rather turn you away from the Dark Side than humiliate you.

In order to make people realise that they are wrong, you have to start with something that they can no longer deny. Once you figure out that whoever told you that the Roman WP and the Medieval WP were localised affairs, then you might be able to figure out that somebody has been lying to you. And that should get you to think rationally and objectively about the whole damned hoax of HIGW.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 22 January 2020 4:09:44 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
LEGO: You’re so delusional about your own pet theory that it makes me sad. Goodbye for now.

Now, MHAZE!
Everyone just knows the Roman Warm Period started exactly on 1st Jan 250 BC when LEGO’s 1000-year magic clock magically decided to warm the earth! (No one knows how LEGO’s clock actually works, but it’s a pattern he’s identified from ‘armchair history’, not science. Also, may not actually run on 1000-year intervals and may not be a real clock.)

You’ve got me! Theophrastus couldn’t POSSIBLY have grown date trees 37 years before LEGO’s MAGIC CLOCK started! (Except, radio-carbon dated limpet shells define the RWP as 2500 years ago, starting at 480 BC? Oops! I love LEGO’s peanut-butter powered and tinfoil hat tuned MAGIC CLIMATE CLOCK!)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018211006080

PROBLEM! RWP & MWP were both cooler GLOBAL climates than today even if some local conditions were pretty warm.
http://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years

Also, so what if they were warmer? Your RWP & MWP arguments EVEN IF CORRECT are logically incoherent with disproving today’s Anthropogenic warming. This is what I’ve never understood. Even if correct — SO WHAT?

“Flawed Reasoning: Natural climate change events in the past do not provide evidence that human emissions of greenhouse gas are incapable of changing the climate today.
It's not true that the world has been warmer at other times during the last 2,000 years. But even if that were the case, it would not change the fact that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing Earth's climate to warm.”
http://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/the-earth-was-not-warmer-in-medieval-times-town-hall-gregory-rummo/
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 22 January 2020 8:34:15 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
Jesus, Mhaze, I see what you mean. These two are like fundamentalist Christians. Any reasoned arguments backed up with black and white evidence that contradicts their PC programming, and they refuse to even look at it, They stick their fingers in their ears and say Nananana!

Dear Steelie.

Your argument is that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the present climate change. That is complete hokey. Whereas I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and logically, increasing a greenhouse gas should cause atmospheric temperatures to rise, nobody can say how significant it is. Especially, since the graph I told you to look at, which you and Max are too frightened to look at, shows no causal link between CO2 levels and global temperatures over 570 million years.

Got that? Even though enough CO2 should affect global temperatures, the historical record does not back that premise up. Don't believe me ? LOOK AT THE GRAPH.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNSOzCknLUH6NYIwzGz8M3ArhMdUdQ:1579710390783&q=global+temperatures+10000+years&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj45cLlz5fnAhUw63MBHZAADzkQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085#spf=1579710394523

The "scientists" who promote HIGW know that global warming is cyclical and appears unrelated to CO2. Their scientific opponents know it as well. That is why scientific opposition to the HIGW hoax is growing, and it includes tens of thousands of US scientists, and also includes Apollo astronauts.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/28939894/than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-

http://www.climatedepot.com/2019/07/17/apollo-astronauts-climate-skeptics-moonwalkers-defy-gores-claim-that-skeptics-are-akin-to-those-who-believe-moon-landing-was-staged/

The significance of the Medieval Warm Period is plainly shown in the other graphs I told you to look at, which you were too frightened to look at. The Graphs showing and naming the GLOBAL warming periods show that Global Warming is cyclical and recurs in a repeating fashion. Our modern warming period is self evidently a continuation of that repeating cycle. A picture is worth a thousand words.

But you don't want to believe what your own eyes will see, do you? So, you are never going to look at the graphs, are you? You want to believe that today's global warming can only be caused by CO2, and you are not going to let the facts get in the way of your simplistic PC programming. Better to avert your eyes and just keep chanting the mantra "CO2 is the cause".
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 23 January 2020 2:44:28 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
Oh no, Max. Please don't run away with your tail between your legs yet. I am enjoying this too much.

Look, I have to admit that there seems to be very significant difference between the graphs that you are presenting on your links, and the graphs that I am presenting on my links. This seems to be the real question. Who is telling the truth, and who is telling blatant porky pies?

To answer that question, I would present the undeniable fact that the science is clearly not settled. And whereas HIGW was once unquestionably accepted, this is no longer the case. Serious scientific opposition is growing with the passage of time.

In defence of the graphs in my own link

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNSOzCknLUH6NYIwzGz8M3ArhMdUdQ:1579710390783&q=global+temperatures+10000+years&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj45cLlz5fnAhUw63MBHZAADzkQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085&gws_rd=ssl#spf=1579712155480

If you and Steelie had ever raised yourselves from your intellectual torpor to check my link, you would have discovered that there are literally dozens of graphs, even some supporting Michael Manne's infamous "hockey stick" graph. This graph seems to have been the spark which ignited the scientific pushback. But in sheer numbers, there are more graphs supporting my side than yours. The graphs displaying Greenland ice cores and past sea levels are almost identical to those displaying global temperatures over a 10,000 year period.

As for Manne's "hockey stick" graph, which some of the graphs on your sites are supporting and even imitating, I would say this. Presenting global warming on only a 1000 year scale is self evidently inaccurate. 1000 years is an eyeblink in terms of climate change. Even Steelie can appreciate that (with a bit of coaching). Any graph which presents a ridiculously short y-axis to present information more appropriate to a much larger scale is a half truth dressed as a full truth. And a half truth presented as a full truth is a complete lie.

Air brushing out the entire Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and instead presenting global temperatures for the last 1000 years as a flat line, was so dumb that any intelligent person today must wonder how Manne ever thought he would get away with it
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 23 January 2020 8:13:10 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
Dear Lego,

The very first image presented by your link is this one;

http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/easterbrook_fig5.png

The site which had posted it was this one;

http://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

It completely demolishes Easterbrook's graph. How about you read it and tell me what you think.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 23 January 2020 10:13:53 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
Lego, the actual timing of the warming periods could shift back and
forth by an amount I would like to compute.
It would be caused by the fact of multiple cycles of the different
causes.
Each cause is logically ANDed together to produce a warming period.
The sunspot period is 11 years but it needs co-incidence of the
Milanovitch cycles and the sun radience timing cycle.

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for
the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish
scientists find that low cloud cover “practically” controls global
temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon
dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.

The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies
conducted by Finland’s Turku University team:

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot
compute correctly the natural component included in the observed
global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the
influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature.
A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the
contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate
sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our
sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased
CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate
change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding
current models which politicians and environmental groups across the
globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries’
populations.

NB, the conventional CO2 pushers are making attacks on the authors
on various comment columns. It will probably take some time for it
to settle down.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 23 January 2020 10:20:53 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
Dear Bazz,

Sigh.

Is the paper peer reviewed?

Is the paper published in any journal rather than just being posted to arvix.org which is used to post manuscripts of studies before they are peer reviewed and accepted for publication by reputable journals?

If not then why are you wasting our time?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 23 January 2020 10:54:55 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
Max wrote.."That's a bit different to 100-1000 range you're trying to project,"

In my very first post on this carbon budget malarkey I pointed out that the answer had to be a range and, since they didn't have a range, they hadn't done the maths. That the budget number they propagandised was rubbish. You've spent two years trying to show otherwise.

But all you've done is prove my original point. Yet even now you don't understand it. Your own link shows is that the base budget figure might be 580 GtCO2 or 420 or 770 or 570 depending on the models used. Then they say " Uncertainties in the size of these estimated remaining carbon budgets are substantial and depend on several factors." They list the values of some of those uncertainties...+/-400 due to uncertainties in the climate response to CO2, level of historic warming contributes ±250 GtCO2, future mitigation +/-250.

So if you combine all those uncertainties, they exceed the actual original values by a significant margin. Meaning that, statistically speaking, the numbers are worthless.

So you've spent two years trying to prove a piece of rubbish you fell for and have finally proven that indeed it was rubbish. But laughably you don't even realise it.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 23 January 2020 2:12:18 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
So according to SR, when LEGO got the 20 year/40 year numbers wrong (LEGO thought it was 20 yrs when it is conclusively shown it was 40 years) SR thought that that bought shame on "you lot".

But when SR got the 20 year/40 yrs story wrong (he thought the 20 year story was started by "you lot") his view is very different. Its all okey-dokey, nothing to see here, let's change the subject.

Good to know.

________________________________________________________________

"Is the paper peer reviewed?"

SR has more ways to ignore unwanted data than you can shake a stick at. It all comes down to refusing to see anything that might shake his faith. And this is called "following the science".

SR, in your previous post you linked to an article in the climate hysterics bible, SkepticalScience. Was that peer reviewed? No?

Oh well I guess we can all ignore it.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 23 January 2020 2:21:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear mhaze,

Strewth mate you really need to grow up.

Bob Reiss wrote a book in 2001. In it he related an interview he had with Hansen in 1988.

During an interview with Salon weeks after the book was released he was asked about that conversation with Hansen. His reply was off the cuff and little was made of it until WUWT breathlessly announced in an article dated 2009 titled "A little known 20 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed." He was corrected by both Hansen and Reiss so then changed the title to "A little known 20 40 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed will likely fail badly".

The facts are that the correct figure was in the book all the time. The author misquoted his own book, corrected the record when he was aware of it and that is where it should have been left.

But here we are with you running this line;

"Actually, that's not true. What actually happened is that the interviewer said 20 years. At the time no one disputed the point. Only when the 20 years was approaching and it was clear the predictions were utterly laughably wrong did the author suddenly realise that he got it wrong and the prediction was 40 years. I imagine someone talking to the author ..."Nice career you've go there..it'd be a shame to loose it. Now was it 20 or 40 years?""

What an utter distortion of the facts. I repeat the details were correct in the book but the author got them jumbled in an interview after the book launch yet you are touting yet another conspiracy theory.

For God's sake get a grip. The world isn't out to get you. You don't have to make this stuff up. Stick with the facts for once.

Incredible.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 23 January 2020 4:16:57 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
Still avoiding the point, SR.

Basically, your last post is correct. A few quibbles but what the hell.

But you original blamed "you lot" aka 'deniers' for the 20/40 error. And that was wrong, as per your own summary. The author got it wrong, or at least claimed he got it wrong, and others simply took him at his word. Pure and simple.

That you can't just own up to having got the story just as wrong as LEGO is all very pathetic.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 23 January 2020 4:53:38 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
MHAZE,
I haven't spent 2 years trying to prove anything because it's already proved and out there. I simply got bored of this forum and got busy with life. In fact, I had forgotten you even asserted they couldn't "do the math" a few years back. I know it's hard to imagine but I had forgotten all about you!

It only resurfaced recently when I repeated something about they had "done the math" and you tut tutted and highlighted a 2 year old argument! Sensitive, much?

2 years ago you insisted they had not 'done the math' to come up with an approximate number. Again, the IPCC HAS actually done the math.

A: It involves the known warming of an estimated 1.2 degrees per doubling for the raw increase in CO2. That's the physics + math bit.

B: Then it involves thousands of paleo climate models to establish Climate Sensitivity, and there are so many with so many likely variables they plug in they came up with the probability (that you insisted didn't exist!) http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

That gives them their 66% probabilities and depending on methodology you get the rough unmoderated probability figure of 420GT on one and 570GT on another.

Then, because paleoclimate must use proxies you end up with further ranges which if they ALL GO BAD and we add them all up against us, could mean we must stop burning fossil fuels OVERNIGHT because we’ve already blown the carbon budget!

OR if they ALL GO GOOD FOR US they might give us double the carbon budget giving us about 30 years instead of the 12 years the ‘average’ highest probability carbon budget can give us.
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 23 January 2020 4:55:41 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
Hi Steelie. I would like to congratulate you for finally looking at the page of graphs I have been trying to make you look for a long time now.

The first thing I would note is that even I agree with alarmist scientists that ice core samples are local and should not be considered global. But I would like to point out that the temperature optimums displayed Greenland ice cores from the last 10,000 years almost exactly match the temperatures optimums on the graphs displaying global temperatures for the last 10,000 years. This seems to confirm the accuracy of the Global temperature graph.

The site you directed me to seems to be saying that ice core samples can not be used to determine present day temperatures because it takes a while for snow to become ice before it can be cored. It furthermore accuses Don Easterbrook of fudging the figures because his graph which purports to display present temperatures can not do so because of the reason mentioned above. I don't know who is telling the truth here, because the alarmist and the sceptic sites I have visited have never mentioned whether ice cores provide valid temperatures for the present day.

Getting back to CO2. What do you make of this graph showing that CO2 has had no causal relationship to global temperatures for 570 million years?

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTFQ6N_yYfXwAtl0Gb8--ISlWoVWQ:1579759552251&q=images+CCO2+versus+global+temperatures+570+million+years&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU3sT3hpnnAhVUOSsKHU6JC_8QsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085#spf=1579759554166

Furthermore as the first (black) graph on the same page of global temperatures clearly shows, the earth cooled from 1940 to 1970, despite plenty of CO2 being belched out. This seems to prove that CO2 causes temperatures to fall. This was the beginning of the first climate scare, when climate scientists claimed we were returning to an ice age.

http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s/

And you know why climate scientists thought we were returning to an ice age? They used a graph similar to the ones linked below displaying regularly occurring global warming periods over 10,000 years, to deduce that given the temperature drop 1940-1970, that our present warming period was over.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNT7uyVn46BcSBL68_NKYYZrWsUo5g:1579761855037&q=images+10,+000+year+temperatures&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio3MvBj5nnAhXizDgGHQXADBcQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085#spf=1579761856697
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 23 January 2020 4:59:08 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
"Then, because paleoclimate must use proxies you end up with further ranges "

Yes there is no one answer. There is a range. A very big range. Just as I said from my very first post on this.

Thank you. You finally got there.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 23 January 2020 5:01:26 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
MHAZE,

Here’s the deal.

1. These probabilities involve lots and lots of papers that all involve lots and lots of physics and math. How you can say they didn’t do the math because it’s impossible to do the math is beyond me, and quite juvenile.

2. Do you really want to bet our entire civilisation on a vanishingly small chance that maybe, just maybe, we get to burn fossil fuels for 30 years when:-

A: WHO says the stuff kills 3.5 million people a year
B: It’s going to run out one day ANYWAY!
C: About half way through the reserve it peaks and goes into decline, which will bankrupt economies still dependent on any resource that has peaked and is ever rising in prices.
D: Exporting nations can be especially vulnerable to faster peaks and suddenly having trouble with not maintaining their current accounts as the export value collapses. History shows exporting nations can become importing nations very quickly, messing up economies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model
E: Nuclear power can replace coal for electricity and a mix of EV's and hydrogen and synfuel can replace oil. Especially if we get into better more attractive New Urban or Ecocity town planning around better trams and trains and trolley buses.
F: Australia is the Saudi Arabia of uranium!

With too many self-important and quite delusional climate deniers LEGO and Individual and yourself, I'm starting to think we’re stuffed. Your well documented psychological process makes you think YOU'RE the climate expert, and everyone else just MUST be wrong. It's simply TOO BIG for you to admit to yourself. You're actually scared. http://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/denying-the-grave/201901/climate-change-denial

If we get unlucky with the Climate Sensitivity (EG: should have stopped by now) and keep burning fossil fuels for 30 years, we may just cook up 12 degrees. That's actually uninhabitable for most of the land on earth, unless we start burrowing underground and living like Morlocks.
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 23 January 2020 5:02:48 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 mhaze,

No I wasn't wrong at all. Since the correction the 20 years figure has continued to be bandied about including on this forum without any reference to the doubling of CO2 either.

However you were most certainly wrong saying the author changed the figure because of pressure exerted since the Salon interview which is obviously a falsehood given you now accept my timeline.

Dear Lego,

Pretty easy mate, just overlay this graph on top of yours. Note the years are in reverse order;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png

You happy with sea levels 10s of meters higher?

Leaving that aside CO2 levels were forced by temperature in the past. Now the gas has become a significant driver because humans are pulling vast quantities of CO2 intense stuff out of the ground and putting it in the atmosphere. These are two quite different scenarios. CO2 levels found new equilibrium under differing temperatures regimes in the past depending things like on ice extents etc. Now the temperature is instead being forced to find a new equilibrium under an increasing CO2 regime.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 23 January 2020 6:56:08 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
To Max.

Question 2. Coal and Iron ore account for 66% of Australia's exports. The insane idea from the climate cultists is that Australia must stop selling coal, which would impact our iron ore sales as well. Why do you want to destroy your own countries economy on an increasingly challenged scientific theory, which is that today's scheduled warming period can only be caused by CO2 emissions? Didn't the failure of "the coming ice age", "peak oil", "mass starvation", or the " Millenium Bug" hysterics condition you to think twice before you did a Chickenlittle impersonation that will ensure your own countries currency will end up being worth the same as a Venezuelan Bolivar?

Statement A. The UN, and especially it's Human Rights push and the IPCC has little credibility with me.

Statement B. Australia has 700 years supply of coal reserves.

Statement C. Then we will worry about that in 350 years time.

Statement D. Same answer.

Statement E. Try telling Bob Brown and the Greens that. The same morons who push HIGW are the same ones who oppose dams, nuclear power, and recently, wind turbines.

Statement E. Uranium has the same emotional connotation to greenies as "bulldozer" and "coal."

Next statement. With too many delusional but well meaning people like you and Steelie, I think the same thing. The only silver lining is that the western world is shifting more to the right because the socialite socialists and their hare brained ideas which hurts the working class, are losing the working class.

Next statement. I hope I live long enough to see your prediction fall as flat as every other preceding cultist's prediction. It's funny how they keep pushing the date for their "the end is nigh" catastrophe ever backwards.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 23 January 2020 7:06:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MHAZE DARLING, HAPPY ANNIVERSARY! This all started 3 years ago TODAY when I said "Do the math!"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18793#334973

Yes there’s a range, and I accused the IPCC’s 2 degrees of being ‘political’ and said I preferred NO CARBON INCREASE above 350.

Bill McKibben even referred to the politics in the movie.
(3 minutes)
http://youtu.be/5KtGg-Lvxso

He said that if there's anything the most difficult and RECALCITRANT nations on earth believe, it's that officially 2 degrees is too much warming. You could tell he wasn't impressed with the politics.

But here's where you go wrong.

MHAZE: "Yes there is no one answer."

True, but it's just a downright lie if you try to display them on a flat range, like you try to!

MHAZE: “Now you're on this "highest probability" rubbish. Again you completely misunderstand the science and the maths. Nowhere does anyone say they took the "highest probability", because they didn't because no such thing exists. Again, you just made it up although its probably you just failed to fathom the truth. The graph you think is a probability curve is in fact a histogram of simulation outcomes. The highest point isn't more probable than those around it,” http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

NASA EXPLAINED THE GRAPH!
“…the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/what-if-global-warming-isnt-as-severe-as-predicted/

BILL MCKIBBEN SAID IT IN HIS 2013 "DO THE MATH" VIDEO THAT I LINKED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Here, I've cued it for you. Come on honey, listen to it, it's our anniversary! ;-) Just 30 seconds, for old time’s sake.

http://youtu.be/5KtGg-Lvxso?t=85

Did you get it? He talks about a "reasonable chance of staying below 2 degrees".

AND ONE MORE TIME FOR THE DUMMIES!

"That's not a perfect chance! That's worse odds than Russian roulette, you know."

What's this? CHANCE? PROBABILITY?

No wonder you hate the idea of PROBABILITY as the numbers start to focus.

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers Paragraph C.1.3 spells out the range AND PROBABILITIES.
420 GT carbon allowance for 1.5 degrees at 66% probability.
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

Now now Darling, don't sulk.

It's our anniversary.
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 23 January 2020 9:05:56 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
Max said:
estimated 1.2 degrees per doubling for the raw increase in CO2.

Max, it is logarithmic, depends where you are on the curve, but it
gets less change every doubling of co2.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 23 January 2020 9:11:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sure BAZZ, my bad. I should have said for the first doubling, and that's all I care about at this stage. I'd HATE to see the planet after ANOTHER DOUBLING! (Over 1000ppm!)

But the Climate Sensitivity means that as CO2 doubles, climate change gets worse. CO2's initial raw effects are just one thing, the CS multiplier is something else entirely.

See my debate with MHAZE on our anniversary of all this kicking off.

Be gentle with him, he's a bit sensitive about me having left due to sheer boredom at the pointlessness of this for a few years. He keeps talking about it! ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 23 January 2020 9:31:41 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
Hey Max, your nemesis is back.

Ya wanna do the math, Max? OK. Here yet again is the graph of Global temperatures for the last 10,000 years which you and your thermophobic comrade Steelie studiously refuse to even look at, much less comment upon.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNRb8_omAb_z9H4Drpt8DtjRw73uXA:1579796996679&q=images+global+temperatures+10000+years&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8oLe2kprnAhWt6XMBHfTsAOMQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085#imgrc=Dbmd7wVrr8g79M:&spf=1579797001994

I think that your 2 degree rise in temperatures is significant in terms of propagating this climate change hysteria. It just happens that the 9 climate optimums preceding our modern warming period just happen to be at least 2 degrees or higher than it is today. So those climate scientists who are pushing this fable already know that based upon the historical record, our present warming period has at least another 2 degree rise to go before we reverse into another serious ice age.

That was what they once claimed was happening in the late 60's when despite lots of CO2, global temperatures declined from 1940 t0 1970, and they were running around screaming that a new ice age was coming. But just like their laughable climate change doomsday predictions of impending catastrophe which did not pan out, they are hoping that everybody forgot that. Obviously their hopes worked out with you and Steelie.

Oh, and neither have the pair of you had the guts to look at or comment upon the other crucial graph I posted up which showed that CO2 had no causal link to global temperatures for 570 million years. Sometimes CO2 levels and temps went up together, other times one went up and the other went down. Do your maths on that.

http://www.google.com/search?biw=2021&bih=1085&tbm=isch&sxsrf=ACYBGNSlLcLAZeJ3LeDlSgmueBMng2EYCQ%3A1579797002605&sa=1&ei=CsopXuuyJJfYz7sPmLuKuAk&q=images+global+temperatures+570+million++years&oq=images+global+temperatures+570+million++years&gs_l=img.12...1246468.1256972..1259003...5.0..0.179.3546.0j24......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39.ZBab1NvKM4s&ved=0ahUKEwjr36C5kprnAhUX7HMBHZidApcQ4dUDCAY#spf=1579798262238

Of course, Steelie clicked on the link but instead of looking at the graph I wanted him to look at, he did a misdirection instead by fixating upon another graph he knew he could get some mileage out of. In a way, I am glad he did that. It just goes to show how you alarmists will stand on your heads rather that examine any evidence which contradicts your religious beliefs.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 24 January 2020 3:01:16 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
Bazz,

The underlying reason you are an AGW denialist is because you do not understand the mechanics of the greenhouse effect.

You should touch base with Soot Morrison. His call name is 'Beam up me Scotty'.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 24 January 2020 5:24:18 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
Washington Post, 7 October 2018

"The world has barely 10 years left to get climate under control, UN scientists say."

Associated Press June 3 1989 Headline. UN Predicts Disaster If Global Warming Not Checked. "A senior UN official has said that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by 2000."

The Canberra Times Sept. 1988. Maldives. "A gradual rise in average sea levels is threatening to completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 small islands within the next 30 years, according to authorities."

Maldives today.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTr80q0S_mrMOyWSa3XGjTE0k81jQ:1579808176779&q=images+maldives+tourism&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWr8KJvJrnAhWMf30KHWZRCnUQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085#spf=1579808179081

The Guardian (who lists the story as "more than 11 years old) announced that "President Obama has four years to save the earth."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

The World Economic Forum in 2017 upped Hanson's "four years" and went for three. We have a bidding war here, folks.

http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/these-experts-say-we-have-three-years-to-save-the-planet-from-irreversible-destruction

Before Global Warming, Global Cooling.

The Guardian November 20, 1974 "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as new source of death and misery for mankind."

The Guardian. January 29, 1974 Heading. "Satellites Show New Ice Age is Coming Fast."

Science News. March 1st, 1975. "The Ice Age Cometh."

Newsweek. April 28, 1975. "There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically, and that these changes will portend a drastic decline in food production. The evidence in support of thee predictions has started to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with them. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for climate change and it's effects. They propose that covering the polar ice caps with soot may prevent global cooling."

Brisbane Courier Mail, Jan 10, 1871, responding to three consecutive years of severe drought. "Every season is said to be extraordinary. Every month, the wettest, or driest, or windiest, or hottest, or coldest, ever known. Nuch observation, which should correct a tendency to exagerate, seems in the minds of some, a tendency to completely exaggerate it.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 24 January 2020 8:30:22 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
Max,

Actually the anniversary is a few days off. You started the fixed carbon BS on this day, but I didn't get involved until later. You'd been running around telling anyone who'd listen that it was all scientific and the budget was fixed at 565gt.
A few days later I'd have enough of that malarkey and wrote a post that ripped your an McKibben's assertions apart. I pointed out that the answer couldn't possible be just one value but simply had to be a range of values.

You've spent 3yrs (with a sabbatical when things got too embarrassing for you) trying to wriggle out from under that truth.

And now finally you've come to realise that indeed there is a range of answers and the range is enormous, to the point of being utterly useless.

"but it's just a downright lie if you try to display them on a flat range, like you try to!"

Well I don't to do anything with these values. I think the whole carbon budget meme is utter rubbish. Has zero validity. Any calculation where the margins of error are greater than the actual value is useless. Any calculation where the margins of error are several times greater than the actual value, is propaganda, designed to give the clueless some feeling of scholarship.

"How you can say they didn’t do the math because it’s impossible to do the math is beyond me, and quite juvenile."

See you still don't get it. Its possible to do the maths but impossible to do the maths and come up with a single figure which you asserted and apparently are still asserting.

" It’s going to run out one day ANYWAY!"
Nup. We've never, ever run out of a resource. Remember peak oil?
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 24 January 2020 2:58:32 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
President Trump telling the children to calm down:

"The president also had some advice for the crybabies and selfish children who disdain to be pleased. Cheerfulness is better than pouting, he noted, recommending that we ‘reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse.’

‘They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune-tellers…they predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the 1970s, and an end of oil in the 1990s. These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives. We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck our country, or eradicate our liberty. America will always be the proud, strong and unyielding bastion of freedom.’

But I suspect the climate hysterics won't understand. They actually crave the apocalypse.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 24 January 2020 3:03:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MHAZE,
What does the range mean? It’s not hard and can be answered with a number of proverbs.
“A stitch in time saves nine” or
“Make hay while the sun shines” or
the Scouts Motto “Be prepared” all come to mind.

The climate motto from these numbers?
“Wean off fossil fuels while you still can.”

The 66% probability is a baseline scenario they gave as a rough target while admitting the CS science is still being clarified. The Climate Sensitivity ranges will hopefully run our way, but NASA said they’re “right skewed” and that it’s more likely to be bad than good. But I can imagine scenarios where one goes bad and another goes good and they sort of cancel each other out, leaving us with the 66% probability of having about 12 years left. If the CS ranges turn out to be far more resilient than currently estimated and all goes well, we've got maybe double the time, about 24.

But what if it goes bad? What if (as NASA and many others fear) the CS is so sensitive all those range numbers swing against us? That would mean we’re ALREADY over our carbon budget, as the 350.org movement says.

So the main take away from all this is don’t gamble with the climate! Don’t gamble with the fate of civilisation! GET OFF THE FOSSIL FUELS because they REALLY ARE FINITE and WILL RUN OUT ONE DAY ANYWAY!

Oh, and peak oil is oil geology 101. Go study the history of any given oil field. The IEAE says CONVENTIONAL oil has already peaked back in 2006, and now we are staring down the barrel of a peak in non-conventional oils sometime in the next 20 or so years. But again, the main point is it’s finite. It will peak and decline.

And the actual climate science says we can’t afford to burn the remaining oil, let alone the gas and coal.

Your lack of respect for science and high opinion of your own ‘anti-science’ arguments really reminds me of Young Earth Creationist arguments. You should feel ashamed.
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 24 January 2020 5:06:08 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
Hi LEGO,
IF I'm going to discuss this with you I want to know whether you are a sceptic or a full blown climate Denier? I was a sceptic years ago as a certain 'documentary' raised all sorts of questions for me. But I investigated and found I had been lied to. I changed my mind. Are you open to learning anything if I find convincing sources? Some people are stuck in so much Denial Dogma they just rotate through their objections like someone firing artillery shells into enemy territory. They fire Objection 1, and while others answer with peer-reviewed sources, the answers are being ignored as the Denier loads Objection 2. Fire 2! As people answer, there's mute dumb silence from the Denier as they load Objection 3. The Denier is not even READING the replies! If you go long enough through their list, you'll probably end up back at Objection 1. They're now rotating! I've found that Deniers don't debate, they rotate.

I'm just wondering if that's what's happening here?

We were talking about one of your false 'failed climate predictions' jabs last time, and you mentioned skiing. I think you are so distracted by deep paleoclimate history and Milankovitch cycles that you forgot to get back to me on what you learned about the trend for snow and snowfields, especially what's happening in American snowfields.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20693#364764
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 24 January 2020 5:09:06 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
Hi Max. So, you are impartial one who was convinced through reasoned argument, while I am just a "denier" who will not even look at my opponents arguments? Gee, that sounds funny from you. How may times have I posted up the graphs which were the ones which made me realise which side was more truthful, and you flatly refused to even look at them? Your mind is made up and you are not going to let your opponents facts get in the way of your ideology.

When I submitted a dozen quotes informing our readers of the stupid predictions of impending doom by climate scientists, instead of simply conceding the indisputable point which was essentially true, and you knew it, you and your friend Steelie did a misdirection and nit picked my statements, and demanded I verify everything. As an experienced debater, I recognise that such tactics are the ploys of an opponent who will not debate in good faith.

My position is, that I know that the climate is changing and I think I know why. It is a perfectly natural event like the changing of the tides. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and I don't think that we can just keep pumping it into the atmosphere without it making our natural warming cycle worse. Maybe a lot worse. But your side has taken the extreme position that all global warming can only be caused by CO2 emissions, and I won't have a bar of that. It is totally illogical and can only be countenanced by people who simply do not want to believe that there could be any other explanation. And when presented historical evidence, refuse to even look at it.

I think I know what you are up to. You want to swamp me with "scientific" research papers which prove your point. But I won't fall for that. I prefer to argue my case from another aspect, and I think that my arguments are more convincing than yours. If you can make your audience laugh at your opponent, you have them beat.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 24 January 2020 7:48:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know the same arguments are still going on, ad-nauseam.
Has anyone bothered to read the title?
"Are the bushfires a result of climate change"?
The answer is clearly and unequivocally,
NO!
The bushfires are a clear and obvious fault of the greens and those responsible for giving them a 'leg up', platform to preach their crap from.
Bushfires are just another sh!tty bonus about what is so wonderful about this country.
Take the fuel load that would normally have been burnt off, then add abnormally high winds, and you have the perfect barbie.
So to recap and confirm;
Stupid people, making stupid decisions.
Abnormally, high levels of ground fuel, due to stupid "no burn-off" policy.
Abnormally high winds.
It was a collection of factors and timing that caused the catastrophic conditions to have created the "perfect storm".
And guess what?
Any child will tell you that if we don't do some preventative maintenance, like burn-off, we are going to keep seeing this again, when all the elements are once again in sink to conspire to do what it does best.
So let's stop this BS about climate change.
If there is any change in climate, it is a natural one, such as coming out of a mini-ice age.
If you haven't figured that out yet, either you're not looking or not interested, or just plain stupid.
All the experts have reviewed or recanted or changed their stance in one way or another.
And YES even the great NASA.
So stop plagiarising, THINK for yourselves, and stop taking everyone else's opinion as the truth, or at least the opinions that favour or back your arguments.
Remember, we don't know who these people are and what they believe in.
Posted by ALTRAV, Friday, 24 January 2020 8:54:22 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
"When I submitted a dozen quotes informing our readers of the stupid predictions of impending doom by climate scientists, instead of simply conceding the indisputable point which was essentially true, and you knew it, you and your friend Steelie did a misdirection and nit picked my statements, and demanded I verify everything. As an experienced debater, I recognise that such tactics are the ploys of an opponent who will not debate in good faith."

Woah, first, you KNOW that none of your 'false predictions' quoted any Chapter & Paragraph from the IPCC right? That these were often poorly written Denialist agit-prop or at least just jouranlists reporting from "European scientists" but not sourced properly, and might not have come from actual peer-reviewed climate scientists in the first place!

But let's start with my last reply to you that you of course just SKIPPED past in your mad attempt to just LOAD and ASSERT 2! (Because when did a bogus climate Denier ever man up and look at the evidence and actually admit they might have copied and pasted someone else's crap!)

I did quite a bit of work on the snow cover. That not enough for you?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20693#364764
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 24 January 2020 9:58:02 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
To Max.

Both of us have to conform to the accursed 350 word limit. Both of us have to truncate our posts, which sometimes may mean generalising to such an extent that individual facts can seem inaccurate.

That is why it is important for both of us to not submit arguments which are too wide ranging. Your post in which you accused me of "skipping" is a case in point. You began the post making assertions about the Roman Warm Period, with which I used my entire 350 word limit to refute. I did not address the 'Skiing" part of your post, although I would have if you had submitted it again. But your next post inferred that you were not going to communicate with me again, so I did not bother.

The thrust of my argument was that climate scientists have been making wild predictions of impending doom for at least 30 years now, and I gave 10 examples of them doing just that. Many of these wild predictions are well known to the public, who would agree with my assertion. Of course you and Steelie can nit pick and point out that Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist, or that sooner or later, ski resorts are going to close because of global warming and I would have agreed with you. But the essential point I was making, was that these wild predictions were supposed to have come into fruition by now, and they have not.

You now seem to be implying that the public should not believe anything about HIGW that is published in the media, and instead should consult peer reviewed scientific papers to get their facts. But the public do not read peer reviewed scientific reports, they get their information from the media. So when the ABC in 1989 quoted "authorities" when they published a media report claiming that the Maldives Island chain will be underwater in 30 years, and 31 years later, the islands are still there, this is another fact which convinces the public that something is fundamentally wrong with the HIGW argument.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 25 January 2020 4:12:01 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,

One indisputable bit of information is that if all of the glaciers and sea ice melted then the level of the world's oceans would rise about 66 metres.

Lands like Bangladesh would disappear under water completely and coastal cities around the world would be completely covered by water.

But being an AGW denier you obviously will refuse to believe this. Just like you don't believe the reverse situation where sea levels dropped by about 35 metres at the height of the last major glacial period which receded about 12,000 years ago.

Then there's the fact that you and all of your other AGW / CC deniers don't understand the mechanics of the greenhouse effect.

I think you lot should all get together and on queue shout "BEAM UP ME SCOTTY!"
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 25 January 2020 5:54:55 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
Mr Opinion.

My advice to you, is to read the preceding posts on this topic before you come on here and start making ill informed criticisms of my opinions without bothering to read them first.

My position is, that the climate is changing because the climate has always changed. And for hundreds of millions of years, humans could not be blamed for that. The earth warms and cools in repeating cycles, and there are cycles within cycles. These cycles are historically recorded and predictable. The primary reason for a warming planet today is because we are entering yet another scheduled warming period which was predictable and right on time.

You can argue that pumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere can exacerbate that natural warming, but not that CO2 is the primary cause of that warming. I believe that every climate "scientist" pushing this new "the end is nigh" religion already knows that. They have to know it. If a dumb electrician like me can look at a few graphs and make obvious conclusions, so can they.

Steelie and Max avert their eyes and simply refuse to even look at the evidence that I provide. This is, for 570 million years, the historical record shows no causal link between CO2 and global temperatures.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTFQ6N_yYfXwAtl0Gb8--ISlWoVWQ:1579759552251&q=images+CCO2+versus+global+temperatures+570+million+years&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU3sT3hpnnAhVUOSsKHU6JC_8QsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085&gws_rd=ssl#spf=1579900451280

Global temperatures fell from 1940 to 1970, despite increasing CO2, when climate scientists predicted a new ice age was coming.

http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/

Our modern warming period is simply an extension of the repeating cycle. As the graphs show clearly, the preceding 9 warming periods were warmer than today.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNT7uyVn46BcSBL68_NKYYZrWsUo5g:1579761855037&q=images+10,+000+year+temperatures&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio3MvBj5nnAhXizDgGHQXADBcQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085&gws_rd=ssl#spf=1579900844320

This means that our planet will continue to warm for another 2 degres before our present warming period is over and we return to another predictable
serious ice age. So if you think that CO2 warms the planet, then I hope you are right. Because global warming is one thing, global cooling quite another. Setting fire to every coal field to stop global cooling would be a better solution that the 1975 scientific proposal to stop it, which was to spread soot all over the Arctic and Antacttic.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 25 January 2020 7:40:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,
A few posts back you wrote.
>“How may times have I posted up the graphs which were the ones which made me realise which side was more truthful, and you flatly refused to even look at them? Your mind is made up and you are not going to let your opponents facts get in the way of your ideology.”

This is a bit unfair given you were starting to Fire 1, Fire 2, Fire 3, etc at us all without actually looking at the responses.

Also, I found your inability to link to particular articles or graphs frustrating, and you asked us to google certain phrases and offered incoherent raving about drawing up your own climate theory about 10,000 years cycles etc just sounded a bit unhinged to me. If you had mentioned Milankovitch cycles or learned how to link properly to just one source, there might have been something for me to read.

>“The thrust of my argument was that climate scientists have been making wild predictions of impending doom for at least 30 years now”

Absolutely and utterly false! Various *environmental* writers have been doing this under *other* influences, like Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb” etc, but you haven’t been able to identify a SINGLE ACTUAL SOLID CLIMATE PAPER that predicted anything. You have copied and pasted a list from a Denialist blog that you don’t really understand the background to. Something’s going on in the Denialosphere as various Deniers are starting to compile similar lists and the first time I heard it I found it a little confronting.

For various reasons with the original lists I HAD TO research every single claim myself, as (again) the author didn’t offer the source quotes and references and links. And there’s a reason for that! They’re being trite, quoting things out of context, and deceiving people. It took days, but I researched EVERY SINGLE claim on the previous list.

Then when I saw yours and half of them popped up on my “Common Denialist Trope” list and I was able to dismiss them easily.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 25 January 2020 8:28:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Misopinionated,

Wow, I was just waiting for someone to mention Bangla Desh and its imminent drowning.

Forty-odd years ago, I learnt in my Geomorphology class that the Bengal tectonic plate (or sub-plate?) was tilting downwards to the south-east and upwards to the northwest, giving the impression that Bangla Desh was being flooded when it was, in fact, the tectonic plate tilting. And to the west, in India's Bengal, the edge of the plate was rising.

You could also mention the Nile Delta, how it is being inundated: indeed, as the Aswan Dam up-stream holds back the silt of the Nile from the delta (and fills up), the sea washes away what is already there in the delta; so it appears to be getting flooded.

As well, what about New Orleans being subject to flooding because of rising sea-levels ? Not really: the barrier islands off the coast have been cleared and no longer protect the coast-line from erosion and hurricanes.

But of course, you would know all this, being an environmental scientist.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Saturday, 25 January 2020 9:50:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Max,

I cannot see how the solutions to climate change would solve the problem that global warming enthusiasts insist is real. The only attempt at atmospheric carbon sequestration being conducted is by increasing the amount of terrestrial vegetation, but given the many fires occurring around the world, this would seem to be a snakes and ladders approach. Yet, from Trump's recent trillion trees comment, the approach still has strong support.

One fact about atmospheric carbon is that oceans sequester 90% of it without the risk of catching fire, but global warming enthusiasts are generally as opposed to geoengineering (don't tell them that tree planting is geoengineering) as they are to nuclear power. If global warming enthusiasts are serious about reducing atmospheric carbon, they need to start focusing research on the oceans.

Cheers
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 25 January 2020 10:29:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max, I and many others have already said what LEGO is saying.
It matters not what WE all say, we're not privy to the truth.
The truth is, if we have contributed to CC, it isn't enough to make all this noise and fuss about.
Especially as a country.
So I for one will not be conned into making any "lifestyle" changes because someone is making money out of all this, somehow.
I don't know how people can get sucked in like this, until we realise people are generally stupid.
Mis-informed, un-informed, lacking maturity, common sense and the list goes on.
If you actually believe that melting glaciers etc; will give a rise of 60 odd metres of ocean, you have sealed your fate and that one statement alone tells us more about your beliefs and credibility than anything else you might say.
We are forever being told that Florida is being flooded by rising water, due to CC.
Rubbish, the truth is Florida is sinking!
Think about it, if Florida is being flooded, why aren't the adjoining land masses also being flooded?
Is there some kind of invisible wall in the ocean that we have all missed?
No, get a grip man, it's all some elaborate hoax, for the purpose of making money.
Instead of following and accepting the message the scum-bags tell you, why don't you do something different, like us, and look into the messenger.
You will get far more truths and answers, (or questions) this way.
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 25 January 2020 11:40:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,
The Harpers Ice Age piece is fascinating and shows how science evolves over time! But the real cause of ice ages was finally understood in the 1970’s. Please watch this 10 minute summary. Please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M

Also, past Milankovitch ice age temperatures were missing an explanation of 40% of the temperature extremes, both hot and cold. Sunlight changes were not enough. Then they realised that while Milankovitch wobbles in Earth’s orbit triggered 60% of the warming and cooling, the rest came from CO2 feedbacks. During a glacial period CO2 was trapped in the oceans and under the ice, cooling the earth another 40%. As Earth wobbles started to warm up the oceans and land, CO2 was released, making it 40% warmer. Al Gore was right to show the association in Inconvenient Truth, although he didn’t unpack it thoroughly. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdf


If civilisation survives the next few centuries of climate change, we should be in space. We were actually COOLING over the last 6000 years, heading into the next ice age by 3500AD.
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

By then we will have a huge space population that could park large mirrors in orbit near the poles to balance out future Milankovitch reductions in solar input. We’ll cancel the ice ages. But right now our job is to stop climate change, stop 7 million people a year dying from dirty energy sources (both fossil fuels and the wood and dung smoke of energy poverty), NOT worry about future ice ages!

Palm-fringed Arctic and balmy dinosaurs?
This post deals with 400 million years ago. The sun was about 2% cooler back then, and continents were different, changing ocean currents and albedo of Earth, etc.
Read this link a few times.
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

10 minutes each
Part 1: Oil is important http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3kiPALQRpQ
Part 2: Oil is finite and will peak and decline one day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOkfTKGMLW8 (
Part 3: Oil (etc) is pushing us into super-greenhouse that have caused Extinction Level Events in the past.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQloUVD88h4

Finally, current projections for climate change are not 2 degrees as you assert but HORRIFIC if we continue on our current path.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 25 January 2020 6:04:48 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
ALTRAV,
> If you actually believe that melting glaciers etc; will give a rise of 60 odd metres of ocean, you have sealed your fate and that one statement alone tells us more about your beliefs and credibility than anything else you might say.

First, Mr Opinion contributed it, not me. I agree with him, but just pointing out that it would be great if you could be precise.

Second, we don’t “believe” it, we accept the peer-reviewed science. Unlike you, who "believe" without any evidence in a global conspiracy to corrupt science and tax us more... or something.

National Geographic have beautiful maps of 66meter seas the link below. Look at Europe and Australia, and Bangladesh is just gone! All around Adelaide is underwater and we have a new inland sea.

Third, what was the timeline on ALL the ice melting? National Geographic says:- “There are more than five million cubic miles of ice on Earth, and some scientists say it would take more than 5,000 years to melt it all.”
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/
That’s a long time, and over time we would adjust. Most housing stock is rebuilt every 50 to 60 years, but some skyscrapers are built to last centuries. But even centuries is nothing compared to 5000 years! We’d gradually move our cities out the way. Agriculture? Who knows? We’re talking about 5000 years! There could be Agriculture 3.0 models following the algae to vat-grown meat & vat-grown ice cream.

BUT most IPCC predictions are for 1m. (Any memes that “The Maldives should have sunk by now” were not from the science, but bad reporting.) Yet the physics of melting ice sheets is not really understood. 1m ignores the chance of catastrophic ice sheet failure, or Greenland & various Antarctic sheets ‘slipping’ into the ocean. Some say 5% chance of 2 meters!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/2203700-sea-level-rise-could-hit-2-metres-by-2100-much-worse-than-feared/

Finally, I’m sick and tired of pissant “It’s a conspiracy or hoax” memes. Grow up, take off your tinfoil hat, and look at the science. I have friends with degrees in climate science, and they are normal middle-class people like you and me.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 25 January 2020 6:07:44 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
Well Max, there is currently a replication crisis in science, so I don't see good reason to accept something on the basis of peer review, especially when the research is predicting how things might be centuries hence.

I note that you mention sea level rise as a catastrophic consequence of global warming, so again, why is there no focus on the oceans by global warming enthusiasts? In one research paper (peer reviewed, for what it's worth) the authors ran a climate simulation using a model similar to that used by the IPCC to test the potential cooling effect of sulphate aerosols generated by ocean fertilisation. The simulation showed the potential to delay the effect of global warming by fifty years with this approach.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4543957/

My bet is the people calling for action on climate change would be the same ones protesting against any attempt to conduct real world geoengineering research to test ideas such as that above.

Cheers
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 25 January 2020 8:15:49 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
Max, YOUR sick and tired?
Who the hell are you to be sick and tired of anything.
BTW, your mates are in NO position to comment on anything, because they are not privy to the truth, only some facts, which are being steadily debunked as we write, so don't you dare get on your high horse as if to be anyone who knows anything about what's going on.
I ask a lot of questions and getting very few answers, and so far let me make it quite clear, it IS some kind of conspiratorial con job.
I'm sick of people like you blustering on as if you are right and everyone not of your mental deficient mind set is wrong.
Well ask questions, don't just accept the BS you want to believe.
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 25 January 2020 8:40:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK Max. So, you prejudged me as an unhinged loon with a privately held theory of global warming? And for that reason you were not even going to bother verifying my arguments, especially because by asking you to Google "images, global temperatures,10,000 years", I was asking for the moon? Well Max, you did not take my "responses" seriously, so I don't see how you can whine when I returned the compliment and did the same thing to you that you were doing to me.

My next premise, was that climate scientists had hardly covered themselves in credibility when for 30 years, they had made laughably inaccurate predictions, which had with the passage of time proven to be untrue. And that was why they were losing support from the public. Instead of simply acknowledging this simple fact, you got clever and realised that of the ten examples of climate scientist predictions that flopped, only one actually entailed climate scientists. Here was your chance at a misdirection which could derail my argument, which you already knew was essentially true.

OK, easy fix. I will just rephrase my statement and say, that the spokespersons for the HIGW cult, and their media echo chambers, have for 30 years been making fatuous statements, declaring that within a very short but always receding away period of time, catastrophe would betide us all unless we repented and amended our sinful ways. Seaside cities and entire nations would sink under water, the oceans would boil over, the earth would crack, and nameless abominations would crawl forth and roam the old earth. Every member of the public with triple digit IQ's remembers their predictions.

Those members of the public old enough to remember earlier doomsayers, knew that this sounded like yet another Chickenlittle scenario like the Coming Ice Age, Peak Oil, The Population Bomb, and the Millennium Bug. If your predictions get proven wrong by the march of time too many times, Max, you can hardly blame the public when they stop believing in your shrill, grossly exaggerated alarmism and instead start listening to the opposing point of view.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 26 January 2020 3:58:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Max. You submitted 7 hot button links and I watched all of them bar one which would not load. Submitting 7 hot button links and expecting me to refute them all in 350 words is hardly debating in good faith. So I will critically examine only the first two.

Your first link tried to shift the blame for the "Coming ice Age" debacle from climate scientists to a sensation seeking media. The presenter submitted an article from the
National Academy of Science on climate change, which even he describes as a "Model of ambiguity". You seem to be making the same claim today, when you defend climate scientists from their supposed predictions published in the press, of impending doom. But you forgot one thing. If the public should blame the media for sensationalising global cooling, which was bunkum, then why should not the same standard apply to day with global warming? The press is just exaggerating what the climate scientists are really saying?

Next link.

"Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes." "Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – have been implicated in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past.

Really? I now expect you to submit any evidence that our regular cycle of repeating 1000 year climate warming and cooling periods is caused by CO2 and Methane. How did these gases suddenly appear every 1000 years, and more pointedly, disappear?

"First, to infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur)."

Actually, it is quite good reasoning. And perfectly logical to point out that earth's climate's has changed with clockwork regularity without any input by human CO2..

Now I have looked at and critiqued your links, are you finally prepared to look at mine?

How alarmists rig their graphs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvrsA0XlYGg

There has been no causal link between CO2 and global temperatures for 570 million years.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTFQ6N_yYfXwAtl0Gb8--ISlWoVWQ:1579759552251&q=images+CCO2+versus+global+temperatures+570+million+years&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU3sT3hpnnAhVUOSsKHU6JC_8QsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085&gws_rd=ssl#spf=1579983171968

Climate change is cyclical and the earth warms and cools roughly every 100 years.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNT7uyVn46BcSBL68_NKYYZrWsUo5g:1579761855037&q=images+10,+000+year+temperatures&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio3MvBj5nnAhXizDgGHQXADBcQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085&gws_rd=ssl#spf=1579983207700
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 26 January 2020 6:31:35 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
LEGO

You wrote:

"My position is, that the climate is changing because the climate has always changed. And for hundreds of millions of years, humans could not be blamed for that. The earth warms and cools in repeating cycles, and there are cycles within cycles. These cycles are historically recorded and predictable. The primary reason for a warming planet today is because we are entering yet another scheduled warming period which was predictable and right on time."

Thanks for pointing out that climate change is the cause of climate change.

Apart from that observation all I can add is that the underlying reason that you are an AGW denier is that you do not understand the mechanics of the greenhouse gas effect. I think that's obvious to everyone.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 26 January 2020 6:52:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr O, AND NEITHER DO YOU!
Posted by ALTRAV, Sunday, 26 January 2020 7:47:18 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
Fester,
I’m into all sorts of geoengineering approaches to solve climate change but they need the most rigorous testing as if we get them wrong, they can be as bad as some of the side effects of climate change itself. Ocean fertilization sounds great, and that’s one area where I totally disagree with environmental author Naomi Klein. Nuclear power is another! (I’m a big fan, and basically think we should nationalise the electricity sector and roll the one standardised nuke off the assembly line as the French did in the 1970’s.)

But there are drawbacks.

EG: The cheapest approach, Solar Radiation Management, could be run for just $5 billion a year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdQRPUtVrSc
But who is going to get all the jobs running this?
Who gets reimbursed by a carbon tax or whatever?
More, which country gets to set the global thermostat? America might like it cooler to protect their massive breadbasket from going dustbowl, but too much SRM could shut down evaporation over the Indian ocean and weaken or even STOP the monsoon. That’s the fresh water for a BILLION PEOPLE. Isn’t that as bad as the climate change we’re trying to stop?

Finally, who’s going to pay for these solutions? “Because, climate change is just a fund-raising conspiracy, d’uh!” (Deniers here have about the same level of respect for science as Young Earth Creationists. Indeed, I suspect Runner and some others ARE YEC’s.) As long as a good chunk of conservative old f*rts don’t accept the science and are voting against climate change no-one is going to fund either weaning off fossil fuels or funding big geoengineering projects. But the main point is to stop digging the rubbish up and burning it and poisoning our population, landscapes, and climate. Coal is an expensive form of electricity as you pay for it once in your electricity bill and then again in your public health bill. Nuclear doesn’t do that.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 26 January 2020 8:06:56 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
ALTRAV,

Wrong again!

I most certainly do understand the mechanics of the greenhouse effect. As an environmental sociologist I am constantly researching what scientists and scholars are saying about the environment, learning a hell of a lot along the way.

These are areas you are not qualified in of course do not understand. All these things are arcane to you and you withdraw into yourself and seek comfort in an AGW / climate change denialist ideology that does equate with what is happening in the real world.

I honestly feel sorry for you denialists. Unfortunately for some reason I have never been able to understand why evil seems to always win out over good. (PS Coming from a humanities background I actually do know the reason - I'm just telling you I don't know the reason!)
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 26 January 2020 8:08:07 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
ALTRAV

My third paragraph above should read:

"These are areas you are not qualified in and of course do not understand. All these things are arcane to you and you withdraw into yourself and seek comfort in an AGW / climate change denialist ideology that does NOT equate with what is happening in the real world."

Sorry about that but I reckon you knew what it was suppose to say anyway.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 26 January 2020 8:11:33 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
LEGO,
First, let me say how impressed I am that you stuck with a whole episode of “Climate Crock of the Week”. I take back any implication that you are just the typical internet troll ignoring the answers and just ‘rotating, not debating’. I don’t want this to sound patronising, but well done! Cheers mate.

I am trying to debate in good faith but you have raised dozens of different objections to climate science and it’s going to take a while to work through.

Now, you raise an interesting question about how lay people are to know what’s going on in science. As a geek with a bad case of the humanities, I get it! I guess previous generations could have had more of an excuse to get impressions that they didn’t have the time or money to correct. More excuse to remain ignorant. Because, before the internet, who really had the time to get in touch with the IPCC? How would you? Were they even in the old telephone books? Then you’d probably have to buy their report, or at least pay for freight.

But now that we have the internet and access to so many wonderful free reports and interivews and youtube and Q&A’s with actual climatologists, we of all people have less excuse to remain ignorant about these things. The full IPCC reports might be a bit much at around 800 to 1000 pages. But the Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC’s report for politicians, is usually around 40 pages and they’ve tried to make it understandable for lay people. http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_SPM_version_report_LR.pdf

So I simply do NOT accept that climate science has made “laughably inaccurate predictions”. Hmmm, actually, a qualifier. There’s a few scientists in the “Arctic News” group that talk about methane bombs going off in the Artic that will wipe out civilisation in the next few years. The broader climate community have peer-reviewed and rejected their work, just as they have various denier arguments from the usual 3% suspects.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 26 January 2020 10:42:05 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
Max, apparently, there is need for clarification.
I do not deny the possibility of a warming cycle, because the earth lives under the control of cycles.
Different things happen to it at differing times, but they keep re-occurring, with obvious regularity.
What I may not have been clear on is the fact that WE are being blamed for it.
I thought I had made that clear months ago.
Obviously not, and since then it has never been highlighted.
So, seeing as how we have contributed a poofteenth of a percent to this whole debacle, I don't see what all this fuss is about.
GW or CC or whatever you want to call it apparently is a natural occurrence, because it's cyclic, it just might resemble a sine curve.
So to clarify, I'm not arguing the possibility of GW, because we are coming out of a cyclic mini ice age, and eventually we will peak, several hundred years from now, it will begin it's decline back into it's ice age phase, like it has done for millions of years.
It is the fact that certain commercial interests and wealthy despots have created the misnomer that WE are responsible for GW and CC.
And so it is that I say it's a con-job, and more and more evidence is being produced to back this scenario.
I want to make it clear, just as the science does; WE ARE NOT TO BLAME FOR GLOBAL WARMING!
I want as many people to realise this, and just get on with their lives, without the need to make ANY drastic changes, lifestyle or otherwise.
I certainly am NOT!
Posted by ALTRAV, Sunday, 26 January 2020 12:56:35 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
ALTRAV,

Goodness gracious, I really think you actually believe that you know what you're talking about.

I'm thinking Where is the problem?

I reckon you are just not thinking about what's in the sources you are reading.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 26 January 2020 2:39:38 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
Mr O, so by your own rationale, I can take it that YOU, DO believe mankind is guilty of the ridiculous claims that we are the MAIN and aggressive cause for this GW thing?
Are you telling us that you don't believe the world goes through major dynamic cycles, with one of the results being that it cycles between heating and cooling, every few hundred years?
Posted by ALTRAV, Sunday, 26 January 2020 2:55:58 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
Max wrote:"What does the range mean? It’s not hard and can be answered with a number of proverbs."

What? That's not at all what it means. Not even close.
It means that they have no idea as to the real so-called climate budget figure. (Note: I think the whole climate budget thing is rubbish, irrespective of what number they concoct).
It means they think the number might be somewhere around 580 (or 420 or 770 or 570). Already it looks iffy. But then they say there a series of unknowns that affect the answer. These unknowns add up to ±900gtCO2. So the 580 guess could be anywhere between -420gt and +1480gt.

That's completely useless as any sort of predictive tool. Its like predicted that a baby will grow up to be between 3 and 15ft tall.

And on this piece of statistical rubbish, you think we should up-end western civilisation. And that's, apparently, following the science.

Heh, Max. Between -420 and +1480. We've come a long way from exactly 565gt haven't we?
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 26 January 2020 6:18:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm gunna explain 'peak oil' to you even though I know you won't understand it. Its hard to think out of the box when you don't even know you're in a box.

We have never, ever run out of a resource. Predictions that we are going to run out of this or that abound, but not a single one has ever been right.
The doomsayers have been predicting the end of oil for over a century. (They've been predicting the end of coal since the mid 19th century). The way they do it is look at how much oil we know about right now, then calculate how much we use and then use simple maths to see where they intersect. Its the same basic error made by Malthus as regards food.

What they always ALWAYS forget is that human ingenuity will find other sources or better ways to use what we've got or both. So the peak oilers said we've got so much left and then its gone. But those who understand the real world know that other sources will be found.

That's why the peak oilers, having been shown to be wrong, now talk about conventional oil. They explain they were wrong because new sources were found, but ignore the fact that others always said they'd be wrong because new sources would be found.

There's an old saying that the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones and the oil age won't end because we ran out of oil. Long before that happens we'll have found other energy sources.

If we were running out of fossil fuels, their price would be going up. But the price isn't going up, is it.

Clearly there has to be some upper limit that applies to all resources. But its made immaterial by the one inexhaustible resource - the human brain.

Further reading:
http://www.juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/simon-abundance-index-new-way-measure-availability-resources

If you decide to answer, please provide the name of three inorganic resources mankind has ever run out of
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 26 January 2020 6:23:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you were really trying to debate in good faith, Max, you would by now have looked at the graphs I have been vainly trying to get you to look at and comment upon, what, four or five times now? But in a way your refusal to look at my evidence is heartening to me. You are obviously so insecure in your convictions that you need to avert your eyes from any evidence that does not reinforce your wishful thinking. I, on the other hand, had no trouble looking at your links, and even helpfully picked some of their "logic" apart for you. This convinces me that my side has the confidence of it's convictions and is winning.

You now appear to be pushing the old todge that your side must be right because it is on the side of science. But since there are a lot of scientists who oppose HIGW, the best you can claim is that you represent one side of a scientific dispute. The most extraordinary thing about HIGW is that for almost 40 years, the alarmists have had the total support of almost all of the world's media. The ABC, the BBC, MSN, CNN, as well as newspapers and television stations all over the world have used the incredible power of the media to change governments, start or end wars, create fashions, garner support, endorse candidates, rally for causes, and influence voting, and increasingly, people don't believe a damned word they say about HIGW. This is the most extraordinary aspect of the growing sceptic position.

Now you have the damned cheek to suggest that I should look at more alarmist sites. Like hell. Click upon the links I have provided for you, look at the graph for "Global temperatures, 10,000 years, and tell me by what logic youc an not see a repeating pattern of global warming and cooling, every 1000 years. Then click on my link which will display a graph which appear to display no causal link between CO2 and global temperatures for 570 million years.

I double dog dare ya.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 26 January 2020 7:17:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max,

I agree that solutions should be tested. That was not done with tree planting and the consequences are all too apparent. Yet this geoengineering solution is still heavily promoted. With ocean fertilisation there is very strong opposition, even to small scale testing, so it is impossible to determine what it might be capable of.

As for who pays, I believe that any solution will need to stand up economically. With cost effective nuclear power and a cheap/reliable battery, your argument would be with the sizeable anti-nuclear faction of global warming enthusiasts, not climate catastrophe skeptics.

Cheers
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 26 January 2020 8:42:48 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
LEGO,
> spokespersons for the HIGW cult, and their media echo chambers, have for 30 years been making fatuous statements,
Not necessarily true! A lot of the ‘failed predictions’ were taken out of context and with NO TIMELINE ATTACHED. Many are IF statements, like in a spreadsheet. IF this, then that. IF all the ice melts, then 66 meters sea level rise. Not WHEN! When = 5000 years. See the difference? So when some denier friends of mine just blindly assert “You guys said we’d all be underwater by now!” I just shake my head and wonder if their getting their ‘science’ from Kevin Kostner’s “Waterworld!”

> Now I have looked at and critiqued your links, are you finally prepared to look at mine?
You have HARDLY touched on them!

Do you accept that peer-reviewed climate science happily admits there are OTHER forcings, like wobbles in the Earth’s orbit and tilt (Milankovitch cycles) that also impact on our climate? Do you accept that the science says sunlight changes only explains 60% of the temperature change, and that the other 40% feedback is from CO2? And that, all things being equal, you get the same result when WE are releasing the CO2?

Do you accept that Milankovitch cycles predict we should be cooling and have a glacial period in 3500AD? If that’s the case, what other forcing is making us hotter?
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Do you accept that the science says “that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes."
ANCIENT climate changes. Look at the ANCIENT graph. This statement is about what happens over MILLIONS of years, not every small temperature fluctuation across a mere 1000-year period. IPCC reports cover many shorter timeframe forcings from solar cycles to El Nino cycles.

But there were some fast, nasty super-greenhouse events in earth’s history that warn us really bad things can happen if CO2 gets too high — it’s the stuff of nightmares! Did you say this link failed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQloUVD88h4

Your first video is so full of Denialist tropes (some of which I’ve met before) that it will take weeks to unpack.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 26 January 2020 10:04:12 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
Oh MHAZE,
>And on this piece of statistical rubbish, you think we should up-end western civilisation.
No, I think we should IMPROVE it by building cleaner cheaper non-polluting energy sources that don't 'indirectly tax' our health system with all those coal and gas and oil related cancer deaths. Nuclear can do it, easy.

By the way, you just a summary of the climate work of every National Academy of Science on this planet "Rubbish". Good job! Way to respect science! ;-)

>Heh, Max. Between -420 and +1480. We've come a long way from exactly 565gt haven't we?
Don't misquote me. Originally I said I wished we wouldn't burn any more coal, that 2 degrees was too much, and Bill McKibben said it was "worse odds than Russian roulette." It's not MY fault YOU can't be bothered getting acquainted with the sources you attack.

Now the IPCC has moved it to 1.5 degrees. NASA was right. The PROBABILITY (that word keeps coming up!) was right skewed after all.

No matter how much you bitch that they 'haven't done the math', they have and the message is clear.

At the MOST we have 24 years, or we could already be too late.
Better clean up our act ASAP!

Now, after you've got your panties all in a knot and made a stupid fool of yourself denying there was any 'probability' in the Climate Sensitivity models, etc, do you REALLY think I'm going to discuss peak oil with you? I've published magazine articles on peak oil and lead groups that have briefed politicians. I'm just not going to discuss it with a petty little pissant that congratulates himself on shallow semantic games. "No probability" my arse! Go teach grandma how to suck eggs.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 26 January 2020 10:26:15 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
Max, for over 30 years, the public in every western country have been absolutely bombarded with a supposedly "scientific" argument in the media, that rising CO2 levels would, in only a very short period of time, cause temperatures to rise, which would cause sea levels to rise, which would drown the polar bears, cause the arctic to disappear, flood entire lowland coastal cities, and completely drown entire island nations. And you claim that climate scientists can not be blamed for any of these laughably wrong media statements? That bird won't fly, Max. If climate scientists did not agree with the media advocacy on behalf of their "science", and opposed these supposedly misleading media statements, why did they not correct them?

There are many reasons why the climate changes. But most of them like Malankovich cycles and continental drift apply only in terms of tens of thousands or millions of years. The regular, repeating 1000 year cycles of warming and cooling can only be caused by another factor, and the only possible factor that could conform is the differing intensities of solar radiation.

The reason why climate scientists believed in the 70's that the earth was headed for a new ice age was because the historical record of warming and cooling indicated that these periods had a ten cycle life span between ice ages. And they counted the previous 9 since our last ice age, noted that global temperatures were falling from 1940-1970, and wrongly concluded that we were headed for an ice age.

Quite simple really and easily verifiable. But there is no way to convince a flat earther who needs to believe that white, western civilisation is destroying the planet, and who is so insecure in his own opinions that he stubbornly refuses to even look at any evidence to the contrary. That is why the HIGW argument is losing ground, the sceptics are no longer being regarded as kooks, and their logical arguments are becoming more mainstream.
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 27 January 2020 2:33:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lego, hear, hear, again another direct hit which unfortunately will be answered with tonnes of well worn response to the contrary.
I think it is inevitable that there will always be an opposing force in any debate or discussion.
What I am finding increasingly frustrating, is the language adopted by the alarmists.
That is; that they have concluded that they are right and that everyone out there agree's with them.
I truly hope the truth will out, and soon, although I doubt it, there are some very wealthy people behind such huge and daring scams.
It's a pity we won't be able to rub their faces in it when the time comes, I doubt they will show their faces anyway.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 27 January 2020 4:56:03 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
LEGO:
>“And you claim that climate scientists can not be blamed for any of these laughably wrong media statements?”
Which ones? Most media reports I see accurately reflect the science. Your Denialist echo-chambers put on their tinfoil hats and trudge up the 1% of media reports that are exaggerations or taken out of context. Prove me wrong! Go ahead and quote the particular media report that’s bugging you the most? Which one of your copy and paste ‘failed climate predictions’ many pages back actually quotes a scientific report or actual scientist I can trace back, rather than just “European scientists.” I thought I answered most of them for you? Unless you just didn't read my answers. What a surprise!

>”why did they not correct them?”
THEY DID! And I showed you them correcting some of the media releases! But hey, you really read those links didn’t you? (You’re starting to look like a “Rotater” LEGO.)

1000 year cycles: sorry, but I don’t buy that you’re qualified to make pronouncements of anything on this subject. There are peer reviewed papers as to the cause of the RWP and MWP, and REAL climatologists have studied and are studying various climate proxies for these periods to determine what happened.

You have UTTERLY failed to understand the “Ice Age cometh” scares, and it makes me wonder if you really watched the video you said you watched.

Before I waste any more of my life interviewing you about your own subjective impressions about why you-thought-they-thought an ice age was coming, how about we look at what HISTORY says happened in 1970’s climate science?
Please answer these 2 questions from this source: http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

1. What were the names of the main climatologists that proposed an ice age coming?
2. Why did they think that?

Then these 2 from this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider#Early_work
3. What date did he RETRACT his paper? Answer on his wiki here
4. How many years was his paper live before it was recanted?
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 27 January 2020 1:05:01 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
Well Max, you've finally jumped the shark...

But first:
"you just a summary of the climate work of every National Academy of Science on this planet "Rubbish". Good job! Way to respect science! ;-)"

Well no. The none of the various NAS have made a statement about the values of the climate budget rubbish. You, as usual, are confused.

"Don't misquote me. Originally I said I wished we wouldn't burn any more coal, that 2 degrees was too much, and Bill McKibben said it was "worse odds than Russian roulette."

Well tnat's an out and out lie. Indeed if you look up the original thread where you introduced this rubbish, you never mention this 'roulette' stuff. That was later after you'd come to realise that you had made a fool of yourself and was trying to find a way to salvage some self-respect. In the first thread you were talking about the number being exact and calculated. For example, and this is just one of many possible examples.... "565 gigatons tons CO2 allowance before we get to 2 degrees".

"Now the IPCC has moved it to 1.5 degrees. "

They went to 1.5c because they realised that, even under business as usual predictions, we were unlikely to get to 2c and therefore the great scare was a myth. So they had to go to 1.5c to maintain the scare. There is no conclusive science about 1.5c

"No matter how much you bitch that they 'haven't done the math', they have and the message is clear."

Well they didn't and even your own sources show that. That you don't even understand your own sources is telling.

"denying there was any 'probability' in the Climate Sensitivity models"

I never denied there were probabilities. That's just something you made...again. What I said was that there was no such thing as a calculated highest probability which was something else you just made up....again.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 27 January 2020 4:36:44 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
Jumped the shark? well...." I've published magazine articles on peak oil and lead groups that have briefed politicians."

Max, we've already got one fantasist who makes up credentials because he can't link to logical thoughts together and has to support his dotty ideas with fake degrees (how ya doing Mr O?).
Now we have Max making up credentials because he made claims about peak oil and he simply doesn't have the wherewithal to argue his case.

I'm just amazed that people think these fantasies carry any weight.

I just don't respond to anything the moronic O says because he offers nothing other than his false expertise.

I guess you're in the same boat. What a shame!
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 27 January 2020 4:37:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MHAZE,

>>Well no. The none of the various NAS have made a statement about the values of the climate budget rubbish. You, as usual, are confused.

Dude, every NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ON THE PLANET endorses the IPCC's findings as well as adding their own words of caution about how urgent it is that we wean off fossil fuels ASAP.

"Climate budget rubbish"... Now I'm guessing you're going to play super-specific semantic games around what numbers each NAS has submitted you predictable little troll.

But it is OBVIOUS that every NAS takes climate change seriously and wants the world to stop it!

"Academies of science (general science)
Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#Academies_of_science_(general_science)

What was that? "Urging nations to reduce emissions"

ROYAL SOCIETY NZ! "Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[64]"

EUROPEAN SCIENCE FOUNDATION
"On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial."

INTERACADEMY COUNCIL
" Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[75]"

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
"...most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible."

That's right MHAZE, every academy above said we should dilly dally and fart around until we get the numbers EXACTLY RIGHT! ;-)
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 27 January 2020 5:49:12 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
Max, do you actually believe your own words?
It's been clarified and peer reviewed, by US, that the world is in a warming phase, coming out of a mini ice age, and this 'cycle', occurs
with boring regularity every few hundred years or so.
As for us humans contributing any CO2 to the mix, is also in question as to EXACTLY, not approx, how much CO2 and how little we are responsible for.
Max, you believe what you want, but I say again the world is a very big thing, and I caution anyone who dares to think that something as insignificant as mankind, by comparison, can influence it, in any meaningful and serious manner.
It would take a GOD-like entity to do that.
Max, are you GOD, or even a close relative?
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 27 January 2020 6:21:02 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
Max,

Just because these NAS have accepted the broad AGW theory (ie that we've warmed and its partly due to emissions) doesn't mean they accept every piece of balderdash uttered by every climate hysteric about every nuance of the climate issue.

Especially by people who make up claims about special expertise.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 28 January 2020 5:40:24 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
Hi Max. Once again you are posting up links to prove your points, which you expect me to look at and comment upon. And in the past I have done just that, but no more. Because despite my good intentions, I now realise it is a one way street with you. Your position is one of "I am right, and I know I am right, so I am not even going to bother looking at any evidence that supports your false position." It is exactly that sort of arrogance which is the reason why the sceptics are now making ground against the once almost unassailable position of the alarmists. You guys are not debating or arguing, you are preaching.

You are now claiming that the predictions of impending doom published in the media were "exaggerations" "taken out of context" and composed only "1%" of media reports. Even your own supporters would look askance at you for that ridiculous statement. Every member of the public knows that for almost 40 years, the media has bombarded the public with nothing but stories predicting impending doom that never happens. And that is why an increasingly sceptical public is beginning to realise it has been duped.

Laughingly, after making such a ridiculous statement, you haughtily declare "Prove me wrong!" That is exactly like you saying that "Elvis is still alive and living in Nashville, Tennessee", and the onus is entirely upon the me to prove he is not still alive. And I you can't prove your statement is wrong, then you must be right. With such incredibly perceptive deductive reasoning like that, Max, no wonder you believe in HIGW.

Now you are claiming that I am not qualified to comment on the 1000 year warming and cooling cycles that anchor my argument. Gee willackers, Max. With logic like that, I suppose that none of us can comment upon political events because we are not politicians? Or opine about whether wars are winnable because we are not generals? Or comment about economic policy directions because we are not frocked economics professors?
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 28 January 2020 5:55:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,
>Hi Max. Once again you are posting up links to prove your points, which you expect me to look at and comment upon. And in the past I have done just that, but no more. Because despite my good intentions, I now realise it is a one way street with you. Your position is one of "I am right, and I know I am right, so I am not even going to bother looking at any evidence that supports your false position." It is exactly that sort of arrogance which is the reason why the sceptics are now making ground against the once almost unassailable position of the alarmists. You guys are not debating or arguing, you are preaching.

That's absolute crap! You maybe looked at HALF the ice age video and then promptly forgot what the peer-reviewed sources said actually caused ice-ages to push one of your own crappy pseudo-historical 'guesses' at ice-age theory. So I had to remind you. You paid absolute LIP SERVICE to my answers to your initial questions: remember, this is all about your denial of the climate science. And then when you paid lip service to and then promptly ignored my links to the 'normal' science, you immediately got bored and started rotating again by posting a video with all sorts of 'loaded graph' claims.

You're rotating, not debating. Load 1, ignore answer, Load 2, ignore answer, Load 3, ignore answer. You're a troll dude. A boring pissant anti-science tinfoil hat wearing troll that ignores the findings of every National Academy of Science on the planet.

I watched about half your 'loaded graph' video, and recognised one of them. Google about the American National Parks fire data. The stuff 'cut' by the 'climate alarmists' from before the 1980's is NOT OFFICIAL DATA RECOGNISED BY THE PARKS AGENCIES, but anecdotal. It's on their websites, if you can be stuffed googling something against your own personal anti-science anti-climate religion.
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 28 January 2020 7:14:53 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
ALTRAV,
we came out of the ice age what... 12,000 years ago, and are due for another one by 3500AD. We're in a COOLING Milankovitch phase but our CO2, according to the laws of physics we've known about for 163 years, IS ACTUALLY COOKING THE PLANET YOU DUMBASS!
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 28 January 2020 7:16:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max, whoa, steady on there old chap'
I have no idea as to the TRUTH about all this, I follow the information that makes sense.
There have been too many major cons during my lifetime by very wealthy and evil men, this smacks of the same stuff.
The fact that the earth is warming, doesn't bother me, but the fact that we are responsible for it does, when I note that we humans are too insignificant to cause something the size of the earth, any harm.
So if you want to believe that we are harming the planet, by all means do so, but stop trying to tell me I caused it, because neither you nor NASA can confirm it either way.
So seeing as how you are no more knowledgeable about this topic than the rest of us, I guess that makes you a DUMBASS as well!
As for the science, well it turns out that way back it was realised that the earth cycles through hot and cold periods as it has done forever, and so some brilliant con men decided they would start this global warming farce to make some money, not sure how, but I sense it has to do with govt grants and the like for renewables and so on, and because the earth is warming naturally, they were on a winner because all the science apparently confirmed this.
What the scammers left out was the rest of the science, which told us this was perfectly normal.
Now because humans are not scientists, they are expected to believe what scientists say, and so here we are today.
Thankfully due to more and more people unhappy with this scenario, have decided to look into it, and much to their surprise, they find they are being conned.
And so it is that this whole GW CC thing is hanging by an invisible thread, and looking pretty bad for the alarmists.
Posted by ALTRAV, Tuesday, 28 January 2020 8:14:30 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
So you are an "environmental sociologist"? What the hell is that? Sounds like you are part of the HIGW industry yourself. So, I can see why it is impossible to talk sense into you. The old saying is that ""you can't make a man understand something is his job depends on not understanding it."

Got your snout and front trotters in the trough?
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 28 January 2020 7:57:42 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
LEGO,

You sound jealous.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 28 January 2020 8:31:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good post, ALTRAV. If you don't understand "why", I will explain it to you.

A group of politically motivated, publically funded scientists, who's obscure profession of Climatic Research was not considered important, in the way that Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Geology, and Engineering are considered important, proclaimed that their research had discovered a previously unknown catastrophic world crises. This was the second climatic catastrophe these fortune tellers had foretold in fifty years, and they hoped that the public had forgotten the first one, which flopped.

Their new prediction created well funded demand for their services, and also created a new priestly caste of politically activist scientists who felt they now had the moral authority to dictate policies to governments and tell everybody else how we all should live.

This supposed world catastrophe, was seized upon and publicised by the world's media who are always looking for impending "end of times" catastrophe stories to frighten the public into purchasing their supposedly informed publications. This was especially so for publically funded media, who saw in climate change as another way to promote a government "of the public service, by the public service, and for the public service." I'll be that Max is another public servant with a impressive sounding non job of zero productivity.

For almost forty years, climate skeptics have been treated by the press as crazy kooks and most of the media simply refused to interview them. But any HIGW scientist can say any blithering nonsense, or make any ridiculous prediction, and the media hangs on their every word. Governments lavish spending on climate scientists. Nobody funds skeptic scientists. They are the ones who get sacked from their government jobs.

HIGW was also seized upon by left leaning politicians who immediately grasped the concept that here was a fantastic way to destroy free market democracies, greatly increase taxation, and increase government regulation without any discontent from a frightened and cowed public.
Not to be outdone from exploiting this farce came the kooky vegans, who jumped on the bandwagon and demanded that all humans must stop eating meat to save the planet.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 29 January 2020 5:59:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continued)

Next to jump on the bandwagon was the growing brahmin caste of educated elitists who realised that here was another opportunity for them to strut and preen, look down their noses at their working class inferiors, and display their moral superiority to the business class, who are usually their parents.

Totally mortified that the mainstream press was no longer house trained and acting as their echo chamber, and upset that the press was no longer just accepting the climate change cultist party line without question, they resorted to acting like tantrum throwing 2 year olds. They demonstrated, screamed, and hyperventilated. They shut down debates on campus using threats and violence. They bizarrely hoped to gather support from the public by super gluing themselves to busy city roadways during peak hour, a tactic which clearly backfired. Especially since so many of the activists looked like extras from a low budget horror movie.

Next came the worldwide tactic of marshelling school,children to hand out leaflets on street corners and railway stations, some kids literally crying and claiming that adults were taking away their futures. Using children as your foot soldiers for political advantage hardly impresses the adult voting public either. The sight of 16 year old Greta Thurnburg sneering "How dare you!" to the representatives of every nation at the UN was a stunt more worthy of hilarity than serious consideration. Every parent has seen such adolescent disapproving and lecturing behaviour before, and this from world saving kids who demand to be driven everywhere, and who can't even keep their bedrooms tidy.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 29 January 2020 6:19:32 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
LEGO, good work and well reasoned.
I can only agree.
I have delved into this and more for some years, and at the risk of sounding like a "nut job", I wonder what your take is on the info I have been following, regarding activities that have names like, The Elite, One world order, and much more.
These people form a group of the wealthiest people in the world, and to my surprise,(or not), are Jews.
Any thoughts?
I realise it is off topic, so if you do not wish to comment, it's OK, I understand.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 29 January 2020 10:12:48 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
Hi Altrav,

Do you mean people like the Rockefellers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Wednesday, 29 January 2020 10:25:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, correct, and his running mates, good call.
I can only hope that there are others out there who have also been following this maniacal group of mental deficients, and they could possibly add a comment or two on this issue, and yes, again, I know it's off topic, but any attempt at raising this issue as a posting has been met with very childish and stupid responses, by people who obviously have done no research or followed this lot.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 29 January 2020 11:49:17 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,
From your youtube:
http://youtu.be/rvrsA0XlYGg?t=147

Why not include American wildfire prior to the 1980's?

They've got some temperature data from earlier that century but not accurate bushfire records prior to the 1980's. 
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11770  But what would they know? They're only the National Academy of Science. I'm sure your youtuber is a heroic caped crusader, like the Batman of youtube, defending us all against.... science. But for those who like science, let's look at WHY the records only go back to 1984.

First, they need consistency!
"1) the need to develop consistent information across all lands within the project extent, and 2) the need to develop consistent information spanning a significant historical period."

Second, the only way to do it was Landsat.
"Landsat TM and ETM+ data provide the longest consistent record of relatively high spatial and spectral resolution data for mapping fire severity. " 
http://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.4996/fireecology.0301003

Landsat satellites were first launched in 1972 but later satellites had more capability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsat_program  

Third, the fire agency responsible for the data SAYS NOT TO USE THE DATA PRIOR TO 1983!
"The National Interagency Coordination Center at NIFC compiles annual wildland fire statistics for federal and state agencies. This information is provided through Situation Reports, which have been in use for several decades. Prior to 1983, sources of these figures are not known, or cannot be confirmed, and were not derived from the current situation reporting process. As a result the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data."
htts://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html  

Also note: "California has always had fire, yes, but not like this. The acres charred by wildfire each year in California have increased by 500 percent since 1972, and 15 of the 20 largest fires in the state’s history have occurred since 2003." 
http://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/climate-change/470699-the-biggest-wildfires-in-californias-history

_________________________________________________  
My serious question to you, one adult to another: did you *really* this individual Denier was going undo the work of every National Academy of Science on the planet in accepting ACC?
If this is the quality of their arguments, how confident are you in versing 'lone wolf' individual Deniers against every National Academy of Science on the planet now?_________________________________________________ 
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 29 January 2020 1:00:33 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
To ALTRAV.

The only surprising aspect of the HIGW movement is that they have not yet figured out a way to blame global warming on the Jews.

What we are seeing in western societies is the rise of an entirely new class of people who are jostling the merchant and business class, as well as the traditional ruling class, for power. University graduates comprised only 2% of the population in 1900 and almost all of these graduates, except for those the Artz, were solidly members of the Establishment. But in western countries today it is more like 15% and many graduates today think that their class of educated elites should rule every western country.

They consider themselves much smarter than the working class, a class of people they have always pretended to champion but whom they now openly despise. And they consider themselves morally superior to the upper classes whom they consider greedy and selfish.

The composition of this new class is interesting, because what really defines them is not income, or even diplomas, but attitudes. To be considered a part of this growing fashionable class it is mandatory to adopt the causes of the people which you aspire to be a part of. The three "'R's" (Republic, Reconciliation, and Refugees) is a big one, so is being anti racist, but growing in importance is a unshakeable belief that western economic systems are destroying our planet through HIGW.

The class comprises graduates, especially those who manage to find employment in cushy government non jobs like Max's "environmental sociologist" (whatever the hell that is?) That is why leftism is so firmly established in cities like Canberra where almost everybody works for the government.

But it can even include the CEO's of dot com start up companies, celebrities, almost the entire entertainment industry, vegans, and alternative lifestylers who are too inept to prosper in ordinary society. The best cure for leftism with this last categorisation would be to make them move out of their parents homes, get off the dole, get a job, and start paying taxes.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 29 January 2020 8:12:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,
I'm not the environmental sociologist,that's Mr Opinion. I've only got an Advanced Diploma in Social Sciences, not the full degree.

Also, you never defended Tony Heller's claims about the American wildfires graph being edited. They didn't include the previous 'graph' data prior to 1983 because it's not verifiable. Simple.

unless of course their department of Parks is also "in on it." Boy, the number of not just people but government departments "Faking" climate science is so utterly mindbogglingly vast that not just the moon landing itself, but it's 400,000 employees could all have been faked. Indeed, JFK and Elvis are both alive and partying in the moon base!

Also, before recommending a video find out who the author is and look him up on Desmog Blog. He has a fake name alias, chequered background, fakes science and everything. You've really picked a winner!
http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 29 January 2020 8:29:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max, the word is out.
Whilst those who contrive to distort the truth for personal gain and agenda, may try, but ultimately in this super informed, easily accessible and confirmed information, it is no longer easy to pull the wool over our eyes, as it was in the past.
What is, and has always been true, is that the planet is warming, not because WE caused it, but because it is part of it's normal and historical cycle.
What the scum-bags did, knowing this fact, and knowing the public at large didn't was to tell only half the story and use the alarmist half to scare people into submission over all these new energy technology grants and development, which by now, we all know to be a farce or a con.
Heck even the wind turbines are now guilty of emitting a gas which is detrimental to the environment.
Can't wait to hear the info on that one.
So the part they left out was that WE are NOT guilty of any wrong doing.
The planet is simply going through it's life cycles as it has done since it's formation.
So even though we are going through a warming phase, coming out of a mini ice age, it will peak a few hundred years from now, and then begin it's return through the cold phase.
It is important for people to understand that we humans are too insignificant to affect the planet in any way at all.
Only GOD or collision or interactions with another planet our size can cause any changes to it.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 29 January 2020 9:09:23 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
To Max. As proven in my graph displaying CO2 and global temperatures over the last 10,000 years, which you are too frightened to even look at, the earth is in another one of it's scheduled warming periods. It is therefore to be expected that bushfires everywhere will increase as the planet warms. But the perverse nature of climate change was displayed in Tony Heller's graphs. It was in fact hotter in the USA during the mid 1930's. This was the period of Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath where large parts of the US mid west became too hot and dry to farm, and climate refugees drifted penniless into California to try and find jobs .

You are claiming that the NAS says differently and sneer "what would they know?" Heller's graph came from the US Forest Service and I would throw that one right back at you. The US Fire service information conforms with the historical record as related to in Steinbeck's novel, which was based upon a well known national climate disaster.

If the US Fire Service today is now refuting it's own data from before 1983, that would not surprise me at all. Just like in Australia, where the NPWS seems to be now fully controlled by greenies who do not want to conduct controlled burns or even allow recreational shooters to control feral animal infestation, the US Fire Service is probably infested with greenies more interested in promoting an ideology which benefits the US public service, than doing their jobs.

Once again you are suggesting that your side is the scientific side which is being opposed by cranks. I do not accept that at all. Scientific opposition to HIGW appears to be increasing and it is the blatant misrepresentation of the truth by self interested official government organisations, as clearly displayed in Heller's link, which is probably the cause of that.

As one Climategate email and the sacking of climate sceptic Peter Ridd clearly displayed, if you are in the public service and you don't believe in HIGW, then you had better keep your mouth shut
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 30 January 2020 4:18:09 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
Climate change is scary, but that's NOTHING compared to how much the Alt-Right scare me! They’re gullible conspiracy theory addicts. They unknowingly swallow and push Koch funded conspiracy stories. http://tinyurl.com/ror5w8j Rather than accept climate change, the Alt-Right prefer narratives about worldwide conspiracies to corrupt every National Academy of Science on the planet! http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

They can’t even keep their own story straight. Martin Durkin says in his "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that it's all about preventing Africa dependant on first world corporations and resource extraction rather than developing themselves, keeping Africa down. But Christopher Monckton says it's about World Communism that wants to tax the rich and develop green energy in Africa, propping Africa up! Deniers can't even agree on which conspiracy they believe in, but just believe there is one.

Yet while bitching about Communism, the irony is that fossil fuels are some of the most government subsidised companies on the planet, getting half a trillion taxpayer dollars every year! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidy (And let's not forget that they 'outsource' the health bill of pollution particulates to our public health bill, effectively doubling the cost of coal fired electricity.)

But the REALLY scary part is as global warming actually starts to bite their baby-boomer lifestyles, what other myths will they swallow? If the Alt-Right are gullible enough to reject science when their economies are working and their bellies are full, what lies will they swallow when their economies are crashing and they can't afford Kentucky Fried Chicken, let alone Hooters? What madmen will they vote in? Because we've never seen failed economies vulnerable to dictators before! ;-)

This can all be avoided. Dr James Hansen says we should mass produce 115 GW of reliable clean nuclear power every year. There *are* answers to this climate challenge, and we don't have to adopt a Communist state to solve it! Indeed, France pretty much solved it by going nuclear and have some of the cleanest cheapest electricity in Europe.
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 30 January 2020 12:16:37 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
Max, why is it you are one of the group who are the last to know what's going on?
The word's out, we are apparently going through a warming period, because it is part of the warming cooling cycle of the planet's natural life.
It's nothing new, it's been going on since it was formed, millions of years ago.
So all you have to do is get your head around the fact that humans did NOT cause the planet to do ANYTHING, it is too big, and we are too insignificant to affect something the size of planet earth.
As for your ranting about conspiracies and the alt-right and so on and so forth, that my boy is all in YOUR head.
There are people, bad powerful people, out there with ego's the size of football fields who have confirmed publicly and on the record, that they wish the eradication of the white race and more.
Conspiracies or not, we are constantly under attack for one thing or another, by very sick, greedy and ambitious people or groups.
If you don't want to believe it, it's your choice, but know that it is all true and if you have not come across even the most minor of incidents or articles confirming this, you are avoiding the inevitable truth.
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 30 January 2020 12:55:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,
>As proven in my graph displaying CO2 and global temperatures over the last 10,000 years, which you are too frightened to even look at, the earth is in another one of it's scheduled warming periods

You're a delusional twerp! The 10,000 years graphs are about MILANKOVITCH CYCLES!

Since the 1970's the 'wobbles' in the Earth's orbit and tilt have been calculated to be the cause of the Ice Ages. These wobbles change the angle of incoming sunlight, cooling the planet. They’re called Milankovitch cycles. But ice age had an extra 90% kick that the changes in sunlight could not explain. The extra warming came from CO2 feedbacks. During a glacial period CO2 was trapped in the oceans and under the ice. But as wobbles in our orbit and tilt started to warm up the oceans and land, CO2 was released, making it 90% warmer. Then the trigger was wobbles in the orbit. Now the trigger is us! Whatever the trigger, CO2 still acts as climate gunpowder.

http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

See video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 30 January 2020 1:14:06 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 irony is that fossil fuels are some of the most government subsidised companies on the planet, getting half a trillion taxpayer dollars every year!"

and almost all of those subsidies are from MENA countries and other oil producing nations. They are ensuring their citizens get their own fuel below market price. Nothing to do with first world countries. If the countries giving the subsidies stopped, it'd have virtually no effect on emissions. But the standard climate alarmist playbook is to skip over that fact.

Since Max is so versed in this having written articles and made government submissions on peak oil (please, I'm trying to write this with a straight face) I'm surprised he didn't mention that fact.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 30 January 2020 3:55:26 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
'Since Max is so versed in this having written articles and made government submissions on peak oil (please, I'm trying to write this with a straight face) I'm surprised he didn't mention that fact.'

thanks Mhaze. I hope he wasn't like the dunces writing in the 1970's who got it totally wrong. The brainwashing was well and truly underway in the classroom. Or was He?
Posted by runner, Thursday, 30 January 2020 4:35:09 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
Hi Runner,
so you're familiar with peak oil?

What are the different categories of oil? Which is the easiest to mine? The cheapest to process? Which is the "low hanging fruit?"

Light sweet crude, aka, conventional oil.

Oh, and the IEA says that peaked in 2006. That happened. That's history. It means that there is still plenty of oil left, but it's slowly becoming more expensive because we've used up the "low hanging fruit." But hey, if you want to look like a moron, just be petty and bring up various failed predictions about the end of oil. (I agree there ARE quite a few, EVERY science has to start and evolve somewhere). Just ignore the basic Geology 101 that every oil student has to study, "Peak Oil", which is just a FACT when you study the behaviour of individual oil wells. Ignore the fact that CONVENTIONAL oil has already peaked.

There are plenty of alternative, dirty oils left, but we can't afford to burn them because D'uh! Climate change is real. D'uh! According to every National Academy of Science on the planet! D'uh! But you are sadly a Young Earth Creationist, and so climate science is one of those scary 'old earth' things you avoid in case it disproves Genesis. And the fact that you read Genesis that way probably means you're from Queensland and are probably an anti-vaccer as well! ;-) Which is sad, as early Genesis is largely creative metaphor written in Ancient Middle-Eastern Cosmology but NOT intended to be read as a scientific document!

Which makes me wonder how other Deniers here cope with you being a Creationist, and yet they slap you on the back for also being a Denier? I guess the enemy of my enemy must be my friend, even if that means embracing yet another form of anti-science?
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 30 January 2020 5:52:20 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
Max, for the record and the sake of truth, if we are to accept that the planet is warming, you must also accept that we had nothing to do with it.
The planet is too big, and we are too insignificant to make any dent in it's health or well being.
So just accept the fact that this is a warming period or phase of the planets natural lifestyle.
We have not/cannot live long enough to experience these cycles.
The con-men conveniently leave out the bits which hinder their message.
You can change your life on the say of some lying, scheming over-lords, I prefer to stand and fight.
With enough people saying NO, it will send a message to these pigs that we won't be taken for granted, AGAIN!
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 30 January 2020 6:06:20 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
HIGW sceptics are kooky conspiracy theorists, are we Max? Here is another kooky conspiracy theorist, President Eisenhower. In Eisenhower's farewell speech, he warned his nation about two new threats to the US Republic. He was the first person to coin the term "Military Industrial Complex", which he used in his speech. And as good card carrying lefty, you would have to agree with him on that? Here is what he said about the second threat.

"The prospect of domination of the nations scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money, is ever present, and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in giving scientific discovery and research the respect that we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger, that public policy could itself become a captive of a scientific and technological elite."

I think that President Eisenhower was correct about both threats, and he was no kook.

Churchill once lamented that every social organization set up with the highest ideals would eventually turn rotten as insiders figured out how to game the system and use the moral authority of these organizations to further their own ends. The history of the corruption of the Catholic Church, once considered completely beyond reproach, is well known to any amateur historian. Science too is supposed to be beyond reproach, and if you like me have the greatest respect for science, you should be angry about those "scientists" who are trashing the legacy of science.

Michael Manne's laughable "hockey stick graph" which air brushed out the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, should have got your antennae up that something was fundamentally wrong with the HIGW argument. I will bet that the IPCC wishes that it had never heard of Michael Manne and his stupid graph. It wasn't just false scientific propaganda, it was bad scientific propaganda. It equated to the "spontaneous confessions" of shot down US pilots in Korea, which were titled, "How My Cruel Capitalist Masters Forced Me To Use Inhuman Germ Warfare on Peace Loving Socialist People."
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 30 January 2020 7:49:10 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
Max, I had to shake my head in pitying wonder about your "logic" in regards to the Malenkovich cycles. What is self evidently displayed on the graphs (there are more than one)of warming and cooling periods, shows that they happen roughly every ONE thousand years. Malenkovich cycles (depending upon which one it is) occur in cycles of 25,000, 50,000, or 100,000,years.

Look at the damned graph. Makenkovich cycles have little to nothing to do with the regular 1,000 year cycles of warming and cooling. And quite obviously, CO2 has nothing to do with it either. Unless you can come up with some reason why CO2 causes warming periods for 500 years, and then suddenly vanishes which causes cooling periods for 500 years?

The primary suspect in earth's regular warming and cooling periods is different amounts of sunlight being emitted by the sun. Emeritus Professor of Geology, Ian Plimer, claimed in his book "Heaven and Earth" that even small differences in solar radiation can cause very disproportionate effects on the earth's climate.

The earth is warming, probably because the sun is getting warmer. Although if the astrophysicists studying the sun are right, that should end in the next few years and the earth will probably cool. Anthropogenic CO2 may exacerbate that warming period, it may even greatly exacerbate the warming period, but that is speculation. But one thing you can be certain of, is that anthropogenic CO2 did not cause our present warming period.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 30 January 2020 8:17:51 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
LEGO, BRAVO, hear hear.
Finally another rendition worthy of reading.
I love it when reason and common sense unite with reality to produce a truth.
I am glad to have been here to read this submission.
It certainly debunks all the theories and opinions to the contrary.
Good work!
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 30 January 2020 9:22:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ian Plimer's retarded joke of a book has been reviewed by ACTUAL climatologist David Karoly on national TV, who — wait for the burn — said it belonged with Michael Crichton's books in the Sci-Fi section, but you'd get more science from Michael Crichton!

Hey, one minute you're talking 1000 year cycles, the next minute you're talking about 10,000 year cycles, and you still don't know how to show WHICH ACTUAL graph you're REALLY referring to. When you learn how, I might be interested in continuing this conversation.

Until then, you're not a climatologist, you haven't sufficiently addressed the last umpteen answers I've given linking to actual peer-reviewed or real world Departmental sources like the American Fire data agencies — but of course you just write them off as "in on it" as well! ;-)

Dude, I'm gonna have to buy a tinfoil hat because they're everywhere! That Firey in the shed that refused to shake Scomo's hand is one of them as well, maaaaan, I mean, I think I need another dubey to cool my nerves, maaaaan, because it's the guv-ern-ment, maaaaaaan!

If this whole thing is just your 'discovery' that there are a few subtle perturbations in the 12,000 or so thousand years since the last glacial period, then so what? You think you've discovered something new? You haven't. Grow up! Go on Google Scholar and search each event by name. EG: Roman Warm Period followed by, you guessed it, the Medieval Warm Period, followed by maybe The Little Ice Age, etc. Or just go to the IPCC site and read up on them. Do your own real-scinece reading for once instead of patting yourself on the back like Rainman having an episode because you think you detected some "pattern".

These things are old news, boring, and quite well understood by the climate community. And you're boring me as well.
Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 30 January 2020 9:44:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max, and yet I find LEGO and CO to be more informative and make more conclusive sense than anything you have mocked and knocked your way through thus far.
Turning to the topic heading for guidance I find that your assertions are not backed by any stretch of reason.
The question at hand has to do with whether or not the bushfires were/are a result of climate warming?
The answer is a very resounding NO!
So that puts paid to this topic, so we can now move on.
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 30 January 2020 10:03:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Max.

Once more for the dummies.

The Earth undergoes regular, repeating warming and cooling periods roughly every 1,000 years, within a 10,000 year cycle of mini ice ages. And that is not my theory, it was repeatedly mentioned in many of the "dumbass denier" youtube video's who's logic impressed me far more than the alarmist sites that I also viewed. So, I decided to check myself, because one side or the other is telling outright lies.

I simply googled "images, CO2 and global temperatures" and was confronted by a wealth of graphs, some with timescales going back 600 million years all the way down to 1,000 years. There were lots of graphs displaying CO2 against GLOBAL temperatures for 570 million years which were very similar. These particular graphs indicated that CO2 has little or no apparent causal link to global temperatures at all.

Refining my search down to 10,000 year cycles and many graphs displaying the repeating pattern of 1000 year warming and cooling emerges with each warming period actually named. And the warming peaks of the last 9 cycles are warmer than today.

These graphs are not from "dumbass denier" sites, they are from google graphs. I will once again give you the link so that you can see for yourself what you fear to see.

Images. CO2 levels versus GLOBAL temperatures 570 million years.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQxBCvhe7bfZFmjpAvNThqxuuV8rg:1580410621884&q=images+co2+and+global+temperatures+570+million+years.&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCxt2tgKznAhVC73MBHel4D4gQ7Al6BAgJEBk&biw=2021&bih=1085

Images. GLOBAL temperatures 10,000 years.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQSa_63j1SzKUn7EFNE2necFCDnDg:1580410732382&q=images+global+temperatures+10000+years&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwip5rXigKznAhXkheYKHeQ6CYoQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085

If you still want to avert your eyes from the truth then our readers are not. And if you keep refusing to comment upon the obvious conclusions that these graphs self evidently display, then you are hardly going to convince anybody that your side is right.

I looked at the wiki site on the Little Ice Age and see that they have produced a graph which is attempting to mimic Manne's infamous "hockey stick" by having so many coloured lines running everywhere it is almost meaningless. That should give you pause to consider what they are trying to hide.

One side of this scientific debate is telling the truth and one side is not.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 31 January 2020 5:14:30 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
LEGO,

You just said: "One side of this scientific debate is telling the truth and one side is not."

Sorry to break the bad news to you, but there is no scientific debate. Apart from a handful of scientists who have a theoretical axe to grind, just about every scientist in the world is saying that the current climate change phenomena are being driven by anthropogenic global warming. I've been conducting research into what scientists and scholars having been saying on the environment over the past several years and this is what my findings are showing.

There is a debate on the subject between the scientific community and crackpots like Hasbeen, mhaze, Shadow Minister, individual, Loudmouth, and the usual suspects if that is the debate you are referring to.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 31 January 2020 6:02:52 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
Max wrote:

"but it's [oil] slowly becoming more expensive because we've used up the "low hanging fruit."

Well that's just patent rubbish. I'm surprised that someone who has written articles and advised governments on oil would make such a rookie mistake.

Max, who knows all about peak oil might enjoy this article about it...
http://reason.com/2017/07/27/peak-oil-what-hubberts-peak/

Some interesting quotes from the we're-all-gunna-die crowd...

Petroleum geologist Colin Campbell warned in 2002 that dwindling oil supplies would soon lead to "war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens."

David Goodstein asserted not just that peak production was imminent but that "we can, all too easily, envision a dying civilization, the landscape littered with the rusting hulks of SUVs."

German Energy Watch Group declared that the world had reached peak oil, and that this could soon trigger the "meltdown of society."

But I'm sure Max knew all that as does all the Geology 101 students Max knows so well.

I wonder how they, and Max, reconcile all that with reality...or has Max given up on reality?
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 31 January 2020 7:32:47 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,

I have no problem with this graph of the last 10,000 years.

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what%E2%80%99s-hottest-earth-has-been-%E2%80%9Clately%E2%80%9D

I agree with your Eisenhower and Churchill quotes, it’s just that these fears belong to the OIL Military Industrial Complex. They’re in the ears of our governments, lobbying HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS IN KICKBACKS every year.

George Monbiot says: “….when coal goes right it kills more people than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. It kills more people every week than nuclear power has in its entire history. And that’s before we take climate change into account.”
http://tinyurl.com/93nm9sn

The health costs nearly double the cost of coal! You pay once in your electricity bill, and again in your public health bill.
http://tinyurl.com/6m2o7c5

Dr James Hansen has calculated that by displacing coal, nuclear power has already saved 1.8 million lives.
http://tinyurl.com/ydx6mxrb



Finally, there’s just no way I’m bothering to discuss the Hockey Stick with you. You’re rotating again! You haven’t explained why that pissant Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) tried to present American wildfire data prior to the 1980’s as somehow dishonest when the independent fire agency responsible for the data says:-

" As a result the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data."
http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

> If the US Fire Service today is now refuting it's own data from before 1983, that would not surprise me at all.

Trying to spread your conspiracy? (winks)

What UTTER crap! I showed you that the scientific requirements of fire studies include specially fitted satellites that we JUST DIDN’T HAVE TILL THE MID 80’s.

It’s like every outraged Denier myth – a storm in a teacup. Misrepresent, cherry-pick, exaggerate, Red Herring, and then SCREAM YOUR RAGE AGAINST THE CONSPIRACY MACHINE INTO YOUR FAVOURITE ECHO CHAMBER!

That’s what’s going on here. You’re all in Denial. For some it might be a bit of fun in the evening or on the weekend or (sadly) a way to spend your retirement. But anyone that actually BELIEVES there’s a REAL worldwide conspiracy to corrupt every physics lab and National Academy of Science on the planet actually needs psychiatric help.
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 31 January 2020 1:04:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mhaze,
I enjoyed your peakoil article and think it makes some good points against peak oil doomerism, which I have fought online for about 16 years now.

I truly HATE peak oil doomerism, and have seen it destroy lives!

I’m talking about the inevitable scientific geology of individual oil field resources. You’ve applied aclimate Denier logical fallacy of “poisoning the well” by attacking doomers within the peaknik movement rather than understanding I’m talking about the actual engineering realities which lead to a Hubbert's peak in output.

Hubbert ACCURATELY predicted the peak of CONVENTIONAL oil production in 1956 by counting the CONVENTIONAL OIL RESERVES declining discoveries trends while looking into the increasing consumption trends.

Conventional light sweet oil is a specific category, and it peaked in 2006. Other categories are making GLOBAL peak oil larger and longer, like dumping sand on Mt Kosciusko until it’s bigger and longer. But that doesn’t change the fact that older field geology still applies to peak oil 101.

As the IEA says:

“The discussion about investment in oil projects typically focuses on the outlook for demand. But this is only a small part of the story – the main reason why new investment isrequired, in all our scenarios, is because supply at existing fields isconstantly declining.”
http://www.iea.org/commentaries/crunching-the-numbers-are-we-heading-for-an-oil-supply-shock

You’ll note that your article says unconventional oil will probably increase production for at least another generation?
http://reason.com/2017/07/27/peak-oil-what-hubberts-peak/

Exactly as I said afew posts back, if you bothered to read it.

“and now we are staring down the barrel of a peak in non-conventional oils sometime in the next 20 or so years.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20693#364888

The bottom line? There is a vast amount of oil left - too much from a climate point of view - but we had better start making plans wean off oil before it starts to wean off us so we DON'T bankrupt the modern world!
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 31 January 2020 1:55:38 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
Of course you don't want to discuss Manne's fraudulent graph because you have probably figured out you are on a loser. I won't discuss your links because you are still refusing to discuss mine.

According to Emeritus Professor of geology Ian Plimer, the first IPCC report included a graph which displayed the previous warming periods as warmer than today. The 2001 IPCC report was the first time Manne's graph was used and it caused a sensation for two reasons. Firstly, it was compelling "proof" that anthropogenic CO2 was indeed warming the planet, and the IPCC used it as their poster graph. The second was, that it created a storm of scientific opposition because it was contrary to literally thousands of historical records and accounts. Two Canadian scientists demanded that Manne supply his data and methodology to them for scientific verification. This Manne strenuously refused to do. Since he had done his research of government money, he was forced to hand the data over, which he did in dribs and drabs, keeping some data back, especially the algorithm he used to plot his data on the graph.

It was found that Manne had used tree ring data from a tree notorious for fast growing when exposed to high levels of CO2. Manne claimed he was unaware of this fact, which was hard to believe, since it was actually the title of the research paper he had got his figures from. He mixed these results with temperatures which were from urban areas, not from where the trees actually grew, which was available. As the scandal grew, the US government insisted that the NAS investigate.

The NAS refused to investigate the Canadians claim that Manne was withholding data which would allow them to verify his facts and methodology. But the NAS reported negatively on Manne's "research", only stopping short of using words like "fraud" and "bias". Manne sheepishly admitted that "mistakes had been made."

After 2006, the IPCC stopped using Manne's infamous graph in any of it's reports. But I can see that it has taken on a life of it's own.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 31 January 2020 6:09:01 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
LEGO
<Of course you don't want to discuss Manne's fraudulent graph because you have probably figured out you are on a loser. I won't discuss your links because you are still refusing to discuss mine.

OH you sulky baby, I haven't even BEGUN to attack some of your first graphs yet you twit! You're rotating so fast through your own crap you've slipped in your copious verbal diarrhoea and don't know which way is up.

When you learn how to post ONE graph, I'll think about answering it. But you STILL haven't answered my replies to your last graphs, so how many times do I have to play fetch as you throw out retarded Red Herrings? It's not MY fault you're so easily taken in by your favourite song! It's not MY fault you just "Believe" retarded Denialists like Tony Heller when he says climate alarmists are hiding older megafires before the 1980's because your such a gullible shmuck you don't know to CHECK this retarded junk! It's not MY fault you believe there's a conspiracy that includes every National Academy of Science on the planet, and that only REAL heroes like Tony Heller are telling the truth... except when they're found to be not. And it's not MY FAULT YOUR A DAMN CLICHE OF A DENIALIST WHO HAS TO TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF YOUR PRECIOUS TONY HELLER BY ROTATING AGAIN!

Ian Plimer? Sorry son, but you're rotating through your arguments again before our last ones are really dealt with. Explain why your retarded Steve Goddard / Tony Heller lied about older 1980's fire data? Maybe he didn't lie, and just forgot to check? In that case, he's a dumbarse and why are you spreading his material? Maybe he lied? In that case he's a dishonest dumbarse and you're not only letting yourself be conned but are trying to con others — so should we trust you either?
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 31 January 2020 7:19:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Mr Opinion. You are claiming that the scientific debate is over. Since your statement is not a generally accepted premise, one might have thought that you would provide some evidence to support your claim? I maintain that the scientific debate is not over at all, and I provide this link to the so called "Oregon Petition" in which over 31,000 US scientists have signed a petition which refutes the idea of HIGW.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

In my opinion, scientific opposition to HIGW intensified after the publication of the IPCC's infamous "Hockey stick graph" invented by climatologist Robert Manne. According to Emiritus Professor of Geology Ian Plimer, Manne's graph which air brushed out the entire Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice age flew in the face of thousands of historical records. His graph, published by the IPCC in 2001 was very effective in frightening the public to accept HIGW, and the graph became the poster graph for the IPCC. But unfortunately for the IPCC, it created a storm of scientific opposition from scientists, who refused to give it credence.

Opposition to HIGW is growing, because the hysterical predictions of climate scientists or their spokesmen, or media echo chambers have not arisen, and the public knows it. Coastal real estate prices have not crashed, the Arctic is not ice free, the polar bears did not drown, and Miami, London, new York, and New Orleans are not 3 meters underwater. Perhaps your mommy never read to you the story of "the Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

If climate scientists and their spokesmen make stupid claims of impending doom which will happen in the very near future, and the future comes and nothing happens, you can hardly blame to the public for thinking that climate scientists simply don't know what they are talking about. Concerns about HIGW today rate as lowly among the public as concerns about trans gender toilets and the adoption of genderless pronouns
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 1 February 2020 5:15:47 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
Hi Max.

I was very surprised when you demonstrated the skill of picking out an individual graph on a page full of graphs, and providing a link to it. I didn't know such a feat was possible.

I still will not respond to your links unless you respond to mine. I have submitted my most important links to you at least five times now, maybe six, and you still refuse to even look at them. You and I both know it is because you are frightened that they will completely destroy your entire HIGW position. Your latest excuse, that you will not look at them until I figure out how to post links to individual graphs, simply confirms to our readers that you are not prepared to debate in good faith. If you had posted the information as to how I could copy your method, that would have restored a lot of credibility to your claim that you are trying to debate in good faith.

Next you are whining about my changing topics. Your problem is, that I have had 15 years experience in dealing with debaters like yourself who refuse to make the most obvious connections, who deliberately cause misdirection's by demanding I validate everything while they validate little, and who argue from a position they already know is wrong. So I know how to play the same game.

So the best way to counter your dishonest position, is not to try and convince such an opponent he is wrong. Because their entire self esteem relies on the idea that they are uniquely intelligent sentient beings. The best thing is to really address my posts to the audience, and ALTRAV and Hasbeen have both expressed appreciation for my posts.

Since you will not respond to my posts, I am going to post up another one for the amusement of ALTRAV, Hasbeen, Fester, and loudmouth2. It relates to Michael Manne's infamous Hockey Stick graph and the civil prosecution of columnist and noted wit, Mark Steyn, who published an article labelling it a fraud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEBeF_Rz1MU
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 1 February 2020 5:50:33 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
LEGO,
>I was very surprised when you demonstrated the skill of picking out an individual graph on a page full of graphs, and providing a link to it. I didn't know such a feat was possible.

So you provide a wall of graphs, and I choose one and you don't like it? Oh, diddums. That's kind of my point! I'm not responding to a wall of graphs. Try to grow up a little and not just sound like the lawyer from The Castle saying "It's the Vibe of the Thing!"

In the meantime, chew on this. In 2006 Michael Mann and his team proved the original 1999 Hockey Stick graph 'wrong'. There are indeed a few minor fluctuations, as I said a few posts back. But although the stick has a few wobbly bits, the overall shape is still the same!
______________________________

The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it’s hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.

In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Further back in the past, though, it certainly has been hotter – and the world has been a very different place. The crucial point is that our modern civilisation has been built on the basis of the prevailing climate and sea levels. As these change, it will cause major problems.

Read more: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/#ixzz6CeAheNVk
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 1 February 2020 7:48:07 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, thanks for that comical enlightenment adding to the already quite humorous state of affairs surrounding the debate and mis-information around GW and CC.
Steyn does a good job of explaining the ridiculousness of this whole saga.
I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about, if we all agree that the earth is a cyclic entity, all we can argue about is what harm, if any man-kind has done to the planet.
To that end, I have continually contended that the answer is; NONE!
The one, and possibly most relevant thing I note, that was broached but not responded too, was the question of "who is funding this"?
Now as far as I am concerned, THIS is the only question and topic we should all be asking/discussing/researching.
The answers would shock more than just a few people.
But like every good scam instigated by the very wealthy elite, we will never know, because money buys a whole lot of silence and science.
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 1 February 2020 8:50:18 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
Max, I've got news for you;
It's been CHANGING from when the planet was originally formed.
There is no knowledge or bar as to what the NORM is, in any of the factors surrounding the planet and it's make-up.
So just accept that whether it's every 1000, or 10,000, or 100,000, or 1,000,000 year cycles, it is what it is and cycles they are, so if we humans had life spans of thousands of years instead of barely 100, we too could confirm the cycles the planet lives by.
Oceans, like temperatures will rise and fall just like they have done for millennia.
All you have to get your head around is that WE have done so little and insignificant harm to the planet, that it's not even worth measuring.
So I would suggest not wasting your time on some scam which was designed to benefit a few greedy, sick and twisted very wealthy degenerates, who unfortunately were so wealthy as to evade the gas chambers, which is too subtle an end to such bastards
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 1 February 2020 9:12:04 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
"Hubbert ACCURATELY predicted the peak of CONVENTIONAL oil production in 1956...."

Well no he didn't. He predicted peak oil production. Only later, when it became obvious to even the dullest of the peak oil cultist that they were wrong, did they start talking about convention oil.

Those who said the peak oilers were wrong said that new sources of oil or new techniques for extraction would be found as the price of oil rose. The peak oilers said that was rubbish. Then later, when it became obvious that peak oil was wrong, the peak oilers started saying we were only wrong because we didn't know that new sources of oil or new techniques for extraction would be found as the price of oil rose.

Its fairly common among cultists and carpet-baggers that, when their predictions become laughably wrong, they retrospectively change the nature of their prediction. Their prediction became about conventional oil only after their prediction about oil was shown to be wrong.

Well not just wrong....laughably, pathetically wrong.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 1 February 2020 11:19:35 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
Michael Manne and his 'team" proved his own "hockey stick" graph wrong? As they sang on "Dad's Army", "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Green?" According to Plimer, Manne originally refused to even co operate with the Canadian scientists who wished to check his facts and methodology. He slapped a lawsuit on Mark Steyn when Steyn called the "hockey stick" a "fraud", which it obviously was. The IPCC dropped it like a hot potato once it realised that too many people had figured out it was self evidently wrong.

But on the grounds of no publicity is bad publicity, the IPCC had the satisfaction of knowing that western governments had used this graph to frighten their own electorates into submitting to more government regulations and more taxes. The graph was also used in school textbooks in Canada to brainwash children into accepting the left's new religion.

Now you are telling me that it has been resurrected by a new bunch of scientists who are using other methods to get the same hockey stick? ? That would not surprise me at all. The hockey stick graph was so successful as HIGW propaganda that the left will do anything to bring it back. I will bet that the graph that Wiki used to claim that the Little Ice Age was no big deal is in fact the graph you are mentioning? I would opine that the HIGW cultists will get as much mileage out of it as they can again, until somebody did what they demanded of Manne, hand over the facts and methodology for examination.

To summarise so far.

1. Q. Is the climate changing? A. Yes, the climate has always changed.
2. Q. Did man play a part? A. Probably a small part.
3. Q. Is it a crisis? A. Possibly, but nobody knows.
4. Q. Can anything we do now make any significant difference? A. No. all we are doing is wasting money and hurting poor people.
5. Who is profiting from this scare? A. All of the people promoting it.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 1 February 2020 1:30:15 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
LEGO
>1. Q. Is the climate changing? A. Yes, the climate has always changed.
True and false. Yes the climate has always changed in both big and little ways — the earth formed, high volcanism lead to super-greenhouses (that killed a lot of life), continents moved, asteroids struck causing nuclear winter, etc. But then human beings arrived about 200k years ago and have been beaten about by ice ages. Then a stable period arrived 10k ago, and we've been enjoying it ever since.
Until now, when we started to wreck it.

>2. Q. Did man play a part? A. Probably a small part.
All the other forcings in answer to Q1 above are pretty well understood and negligible. Only CO2 is driving this warming. See IPCC and thousands of peer-reviewed reports AND EVERY NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ON THE PLANET!

>3. Q. Is it a crisis? A. Possibly, but nobody knows.
Definitely, as the climatologists have presented the possible changes to economists and it's bad for agriculture, geopolitical stability, etc.

>4. Q. Can anything we do now make any significant difference? A. No.

Crap! We can do what the French ALREADY did and have a big build out of clean emission free nuclear power, electrify transport, and convert larger vehicles to synthetic fuels. (We will have to do this anyway when fossil fuels run out, so the best time to start is now.)

>all we are doing is wasting money and hurting poor people.
Crap! Stern & Garnaut & countless climate papers show that the interface of global warming and economies always hurts the poor.

>5. Who is profiting from this scare? A. All of the people promoting it.
A grade bullsh$t! Fossil fuel companies earn $10 TRILLION a year and get $500 BILLION in kickbacks. They don't want this pesky scientific thing called 'climate change' hurting their budgets, so they con people like you and Altrav into doing their dirty work and spreading misinformation online. Koch even fund Deniers going into churches and retirement villages
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 1 February 2020 1:46:51 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
MHAZE,
I’m happy to grant that technology has vastly improved access to deep sea oil reserves that were probably not even on Marian King Hubbert’s radar when he presented his 1956 paper, AND that non-conventional shale oils will stretch the peak WELL past the CONVENTIONAL CRUDE OIL PEAK of 2006.

But dude, again I have to ask, did you EVEN READ THE BASIC WIKI?

“1956, Hubbert correctly predicted that production of oil from conventional sources would peak in the continental United States around 1965–1970.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

While his famous talk touched on all the fossil fuel resources at some point or other, when talking about CRUDE he meant CRUDE!
“Crude Oil and Natural Gas.— The comparable data for world crude-oil reserves are presented in Figure 15. Here the distinction must be borne in mind between crude oil or petroleum and total “liquid hydrocarbons” or “petroleum liquids •” In. the early stages of the petroleum industry, the usable products were crude oil and natural gas, and most petroleum statistics still pertain to those two products. During recent decades, however, due to improved technology there has been an increasing yield of the so-called “natural-gas liquids” obtained as a by-product of natural gas. Statistics on total petroleum liquids, or liquid hydrocarbons, comprise both crude oil and natural-gas liquids. Since the production curves here considered are of crude oil only, then the pertinent reserve data must also be limited to crude oil.”
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-03-08/nuclear-energy-and-fossil-fuels/
Figure 21 is American CRUDE production in 1970, which was SPOT ON! Graphs here.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf

So MHaze you’re “not just wrong....laughably, pathetically wrong.”

AND even YOUR link above shows EXACTLY WHAT I SAID that production might increase for the next “generation” (or as I said, 20 or so years). Then what? What happens to non-recyclable mineral resources?

Bell curve. Peak.

So your assertion that we’ve “never run out of a resource” is just retarded. Easily accessible crude has already peaked. Dirtier non-conventional shale oils and tar sands will also. They’re NOT regenerating!

Again, you’re “not just wrong....laughably, pathetically wrong.”

But uranium from seawater can last billions of years.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 1 February 2020 2:46:21 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
Max, still you push your version of things.
Picking at random, some of your fictional comments.
You denounce the fact that many of us have asserted that we have NEVER run out of a resource, and fossil fuel is just another.
I did not know we have run out of oil, good bad or otherwise.
Oil, not shale or heavy or bunker or light crude; OIL!
It's frustrating having discussions with the like of yourself and your running mates.
I will accept your objection to LEGO'S comment about never running out of oil, when, we run out of OIL!
Until then just keep it to yourself because we haven't yet.
Q1; LEGO's answer was correct, no one asked for an explanation in a vane attempt at debunking this question.
The answer was NO! End of.
Q2; The answer is, If they did it is insignificant. No-one can prove anything because there has never been accurate and CREDITABLE stats and figures on what went on from the beginning of time.
We do however know that the planet has seen much worse and more catastrophic times, which render today's understanding of times past to be of little use.
Q3; Definitely NOT! Anyone saying otherwise is either a YES man or are gaining something from it.
Q4; The answer is clearly NO! There is NO major apocalypse about to happen, ANYWHERE, anytime soon.
So scaremongering works on fools like yourself and Co, and that's why we have to continually rebut your stupid childish subjective opinions on this topic, instead of looking into them, and reading between the lines, asking the hard questions, then and only then will you learn the truth, and not continually quote references to people of like mind in a sad and mad attempt at winning an argument at ALL cost.
Here's some related info, you WILL learn something from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMF9aMI-9ek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTXdhTwO320

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzLFZBb-n5U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEBeF_Rz1MU

There are more, but I didn't want to over tax your brain too soon in the long road to detox and re-education
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 1 February 2020 5:09:07 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
ALTRAV, I've kinda stopped reading your posts ever since you started back-slapping your Denialist girlfriends in here, and then trying to engage me with various trite little attempts. You remind me of a hyperactive kid waving his arms around yelling "Look at me! Look at me! I can do grown up words too!" Please stop smooching LEGO, it's embarrassing. Just don't try, this is way over your head.
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 1 February 2020 9:28:01 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
Max, is this how you conduct your daily life?
Are you really this shallow?
I am on a journey of conversation and debate, and more often than not find myself hijacked into a spur line topic of conversation, but even though I use some of the most colourful language (Australian) here, I am always front and centre, if the topic calls me.
If not you will find, unlike you, I do not comment on so many topics for whatever reason, mostly I don't care or am not familiar or conversant with the article in question.
You on the other hand, well I don't know what to make of you.
Your rhetoric and demeanor exhibit a somewhat irrational and petulant mind, which is incapable of having a rational conversation.
I don't mind as long as I know the devil I'm dealing with, I can adjust my comments accordingly to accommodate you.
What I can't/wont do is attempt an adult conversation with someone with the mental acumen of a pre-pubescent on drugs.
Thank you for giving me your position and stance on my attempt at responding to your comments.
I will refrain from directing my comments to you directly should I feel the need to respond to anything you may say.
I will in fact make it a broadcast comment, for everyone else to read, thereby sparing you the mental and emotional anguish of attempting to string more than two words together, as I understand how painful it must be for someone with your level of intellect and social standing.
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 1 February 2020 11:11:06 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
President Eisenhower. January 17, 1961.

"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex." " ... we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger, that public policy itself could become captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Since all of the modern world's infrastructure is based upon fossil fuels, a scientific and technological elite are saying that the world must give it all up or very bad things are going to happen, very soon. The scientific and technological elite who comprise the Climate Industrial Complex, want to completely up end the western world in order to redistribute the world's wealth and create global equality. Where have I heard that one before, comrades?

Interview with Dr Ottmar Endenhofer, IPCC, co-chair of working group 3, November 13, 2010,

"We (UN-IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy..... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

The New York times writes that earth's population needs to panic.

"Panic might seem counterproductive, but in the case of climate change, we are at a point where alarmism and catastrophic thinking are valuable. The looming catastrophe demands a global response, now.

The Washington Post. 2019 "AOC claims the world will end in 12 years unless we do something now."

So, unless the western world does not panic and completely destroy itself by adopting an impossible Quixotic dream of a modern society without fossil fuels, and redistributes it's wealth, right now, we are all gunna die in 12 years,

President Trump has tweeted that global warming is "fake science". He withdrew funding for renewable energy and withdrew the USA from the Paris accord. No wonder the left who represents the elites hates Trump with such a passion it will do anything to get rid of him. I agree with Dr Endenhofer, this has little to do with the environment. It is simply a tactic to panic the public into accepting Socialism 2
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 2 February 2020 3:33:42 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
LEGO,
Cortez cares about HIGW, and unfortunately wasn't watching her sound-bytes. The 12 years isn't how long till the world ends, but how long we have at currently increasing rates of fossil fuel consumption (on a best PROBABILITY modality MHAZE!) before we commit to 1.5 degrees.

Even 2 degrees of warming isn't the end of the world, that we know of anyway. IF we have our Climate Sensitivity right. Check this summary from the UN, which outlines just how much worse 2 degrees will be over 1.5 degrees. What a difference half a degree makes!

http://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2018-10-08/statement-secretary-general-ipcc-special-report-global-warming-15-%C2%BAc

But here's the thing. I'm very mindful of the fact that Climate Sensitivity has such a dangerous range in forecasts. Their most probable scenarios give us 12 years, but we could already be committed to 2 or 3 degrees if the models are too 'right skewed' as NASA put it. We might already be over the "legal limit", so to speak. (I often use the blood alcohol legal limit to explain CO2 to people who have tiny brains and think a tiny percent of something can't have a powerful effect. But just as being 0.05% or 500 ppm blood alcohol can be deadly, so too with climate change.)
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 2 February 2020 8:30:23 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
Max,

Just a few more points for you and then I'll leave you in peace.

1. Using Wikipedia on issues such as this is insane. Read about how William Connelly bastardised Wikipedia on all things climate to understand that you just can't trust Wikipedia on this at all. For example they include the word conventional in your quote to try to vindicate Hubbert. But he didn't include 'conventional' in his prediction because there was basically nothing but conventional at the time.

2. He was wrong. He said US oil production would peak in 1970. But right now the US is producing more oil than in 1970. And next year more again. and more again.

3. He was wrong about the world peaking in 2006.

4. He utterly failed to have the imagination to understand that as prices for oil rose, the incentive to look for more oil and use better technology would increase. Others, like Julian Simon, knew and explained why the peak oilers were wrong. Simon was right. Hubbert and all those who fell for his doomsaying were utterly wrong. That's why they now need to use weaselly words like to 'conventional' to try to hide their error.

5. Based on current known reserves, the world has over 500 years worth of oil still accessible even at projected higher demand. Based on estimated reserves it has 2000 yrs left.

/cont
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 2 February 2020 9:45:23 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
/cont
6. But only those who have no understanding of history or economics think we'll be still using oil to fuel the economy by then. Oil will probably be an historic curiosity before the end of this century. Replaced by who knows what. 100 years ago there was no solar, wind, wave or nuclear power. Imagine the next 100 years. (well not you, but someone who can think outside the box).

7. "So your assertion that we’ve “never run out of a resource” is just retarded." So you say, but I note that you can't give an example of a resource we've ever run out of. You see Max, what seems to be too hard for you to understand is that human ingenuity outpaces resources. Sure, if we just keep using oil for the next 1000 years, it'll run out. But long before then we'll be using something else. Always been thus. I fail to understand why that's too hard for the dullards to understand. Someone once said..."The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones, and the oil age won't end because we run out of oil".

8. " They’re NOT regenerating!" Well many scientists think they are. I'm agnostic on that. Check out Abiogenic petroleum.

Finally Max, I note that you are trying very hard to ignore my taunts about your claimed expertise in peak oil. Just making up claims of expertise to support a failing argument puts you in the same league as the moronic Mr O. Until you withdraw I will continue to taunt you about it.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 2 February 2020 9:45:27 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
Mhaze,
I agree that one must always check sources on wikipedia but it’s a good introduction. You made assertions about M K Hubbert’s 1956 speech that showed you were not even familiar with the wiki. I stand my my quote from the wiki and his original 1956 speech. I also think that if you're gong to state something about it, maybe you quote from the original source document to prove your assertions?

I stand by the quote I offered above and this new one also from his speech, discussing AFTER peak oil.

>>“This does not necessarily imply that the United States or other parts of the industrial world will soon become destitute of liquid and gaseous fuels, because these can be produced from other fossil fuels which occur in much greater abundance.”
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-03-08/nuclear-energy-and-fossil-fuels/

Again, Figure 21 is American CRUDE production in 1970, which was SPOT ON! Graphs here.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf

I know it’s complex, but there’s more to this story than just ‘oil’. There’s different kinds. Just rinsing and repeating your original assertion DOES NOT remove what has come to light by investigating the actual speech!

Continued later…
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 2 February 2020 2:14:23 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
MHAZE,
Also check Figure 20 — Ultimate WORLD CRUDE oil production. He predicted 2000 and the IEA said CRUDE peaked in 2006. Not all categories — just crude. These days the IEA predict a mid 2020’s peak for ALL categories. http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/IEA-Peak-Oil-Demand-Is-Less-Than-A-Decade-Away.html#

I haven’t bothered following the data around the actual date of peak oil for years — my activist days in 2005 helped culminate in the Federal Senate peak oil enquiry which had a number of key findings. No, I’m not a geologist. I have repeatedly said I’m not a scientist but only have an Advanced Diploma in Social Science! All I did was READ about it obsessively for a number of years. I published one print magazine article and ran a group that ran a few presentations to State politicians a while back. (I’m being ambiguous on purpose.)

Having read so much about it I found your inflammatory assertion that we’ll NEVER RUN OUT of oil just made me wince — and so very tired. And yet you contradict yourself by being agnostic about Abiogenic oil? It’s one or the other.

Meanwhile, we’ll just continue to build out an oil based civilisation and transport system while you make up your mind on whether or not this resource is renewable, shall we?

It’s troublesome to me that there are smart people like you out there that are so intentionally stubborn and unwise in their worldviews.

But I don’t care about the actual date of the peak. What I care about is the vision of the long decline the other side, never again able to meet demand. What will that bring? Add nationalism and geography to the mix! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model

Meanwhile, I’m not a peak oil doomer — I saw that cause a suicide. I met the father. I HATE it!

But I’m a realist. One day we WILL run out, but with HUMAN INGENUITY (on this we agree!) we can substitute oil with nuclear power and do some things differently. We can build New Urban communities that are more walkable, intimate and attractive, we can electrify transport, use synfuels, etc.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 2 February 2020 3:17:32 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
To ALTRAV

To hot button your links, take the "s" out of "https" after you cut and paste the address.

Hi Max.

Another reason why global warming is losing support from the public is because it is yet another cause advanced by the loony left. Even the Gaian Goddess Greta and her mother and father have been photographed wearing ANTIFA T-shirts. It is a funny old world when the privileged sons and daughters of the middle class want to overthrow the free market democracies they all want to live in, and replace it with some Brave New World of a carbon free regurgitated Socialism. A Socialism which failed in every county that ever had the collective stupidity to adopt it.

But unfortunately for you and your latte sipping, chardonnay sucking, public servant friends doing unproductive non jobs in the public service, the tax paying peasants are revolting. From the yellow vests of France, to the farmers in Holland, to the Brexiteers, to the deplorables in the USA, and the miners who gave Bob Brown and his caravan of trendies two fingers full of righteous indignation in Queensland, the left has lost the working class.

HIGW is not just another cause that the left uses to destroy the western world that they despise, but want to live in. Increasingly, it is being seen as THE defining cause of the loony left. The more the loonies super glue themselves to roadways, disrupt meetings and shout down speakers, and generally act like the fascist little bustards they really are, the more they are undermining public support for their central, cherished ideal of HIGW.

The western world is turning right, Max, away from you and your comrades cherished ideals. The left has done it's best to destroy Europe and so right wing parties are in the ascendant in Europe everywhere. Because Europeans can see with their own eyes how leftist policies on immigration and open borders has destroyed their peaceful communities and wrecked their economies, and they won't let the loonies do more damage with HIGW.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 2 February 2020 4:32:02 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
LEGO,

First, reality isn’t democratic, is it? So even if we were all really dumbass Deniers, the number of people that believe something doesn’t make it true.

Second, the number of people qualified to comment mostly agree. There are a few dumbasses that are just cantankerous old men and women, but most agree.

Third, most scientific ORGANISATIONS agree. The peer-reviewed process operates on strict empirical guidelines. The truth will out! Every National Academy of Science on the planet, etc. They all agree!

Fourth, where the heck do you get the idea we are losing support? That’s about as dumb and uninformed as denying HIGW in the first place!

“Compared with a decade ago, more Americans today say protecting the environment and dealing with global climate change should be top priorities for the president and Congress.”
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/19/how-americans-see-climate-change-in-5-charts/

“Two-thirds of Americans believe climate change is either a crisis or a serious problem, with a majority wanting immediate action to address global heating and its damaging consequences, major new polling has found.”
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/15/americans-climate-change-crisis-cbs-poll

“We’ve been doing nationally representative surveys of over 1,000 Americans twice a year for more than a decade. We’ve found that the United States is now at an all-time record high in terms of people accepting that climate change is real and that it’s caused by human beings. Worry levels are at an all-time high, and public support for many policies are at or near highs.”
http://hbr.org/2020/01/what-do-people-really-believe-about-climate-change

A majority of Americans think action needs to be taken right now to address climate change. Most consider it at least to be a serious problem — including more than a quarter who say it is a crisis.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-most-americans-say-climate-change-should-be-addressed-now-2019-09-15/

Fifth, I’ve seen plenty of free market solutions proposed for climate change and a few that just say we should do what the French did and just Nationalise the ELECTRICITY SECTOR and roll out the nukes. But that's it! That's one sector, hardly a command economy in everything. What’s your evidence that climate science has a secret Socialist agenda? Because I'm really bored now. You need to put up or shut up.
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 3 February 2020 8:01:00 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
Max, maybe you'll listen to first hand experts, and not second hand anecdotal graphs.
Try these videos, they have real experts telling us the real truth about CC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZdm-w6FmHo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMF9aMI-9ek

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEBeF_Rz1MU

I have others, but I don't need any more convincing about the truth surrounding this CC fraud.
And as for this continual bombardment of having to "do something about CC", NO WE DON'T!
We just need to get on with our lives and ignore all this, as it is a distraction caused by people who only have their own interests at heart, not ours.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 3 February 2020 8:53:51 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
To Max.

I find it ironic that you claim that just because the majority of people believe in something, does not make it true. Then claim that the polls maintain that the majority of people believe in HIGW.

If climate change was so important to most people, why did Shorten, with his "50% renewables", lose the Australian election? I would opine that the shrill support for HIGW comes from two demographics, the urban elites plus our brainwashed youth, and has little support outside of those two demographics. If the middle classes and upper classes took HIGW seriously, then why have not coastal real estate prices all over the planet plummeted?

Second, I disagree that all of science is behind HIGW. The world's tiny community of paleoclimatiscists may mostly be behind it (Tim Ball is not), But the number of "sceptic" vids on Youtube just keeps growing, and the presenters are physicists, astrophysicists, historians, and geologists.

Third. If peer review was so accurate, how was it that even your own side is admitting that there were significant errors in Michael Manne's infamous and iconic "hockey sick" graph? According to Plimer, the NAS claimed that "peer review" of Manne's work was the problem. They noted that the Paleoclimatic science discipline is very small and they all know each other. Having people from only a small peer group "rigorously" review their own mates work on a subject they all have a vested interest in, involving government policy, and spending trillions of dollars, should hardly be recommended.

Fourth, I get the idea that your side is losing support because the number of sceptic sites on youtube is growing fast. Even five years ago, there were no more than a half dozen and now every time I research, I keep finding a lot of new ones. One that I found only today, was of noted author and once prominent HIGW advocate Michael Crighton (Jurassic Park) , saying that he no longer believed that CO2 was the primary problem in global warming.

Perhaps you would like to listen to what he says?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0&t=385s
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 3 February 2020 9:25:14 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
LEGO,
>I find it ironic that you claim that just because the majority of people believe in something, does not make it true. Then claim that the polls maintain that the majority of people believe in HIGW.

It’s sad that you cannot see how both my statements above are complementary, not contradictory. It only takes a small group of scientists to discover a new fact about the universe and overturn generations of thought, so majority opinion does not equal truth. Yet it is ALSO a fact that with something as complex as climate change most people are not qualified to decide themselves and should be humble enough to be guided by the majority peer-reviewed scientific process.

Tim Ball is a cantankerous old geologist who loves to sell his books. His claims are just sad and have been repeatedly debunked by climate experts who know better.

What to DO about it can be very controversial as well, but just because mad people come along and hitch their wagons to a movement does not make the science itself invalid.

Because there were no nuclear parties in the last election I kinda lost interest. I understand Labor lost because they were perceived as walking in on another’s turf in Queensland and threatening jobs, when here in NSW Berejilkian is being retarded and opening more coal mines that total more than Adani!

If we go nuclear, retraining and even relocation should be offered to all coal workers put out of work. But that’s a comment on the “doing”, on the climate policy - not the validity of the original science.
“Our side” is the science, the actual legit science, not the quacks like Tim Ball. “Our side” has been growing, see links above.

FINALLY, I REPEAT!
What’s your evidence that climate science has a secret Socialist agenda? Because I'm really bored now. You need to put up or shut up.
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 3 February 2020 11:39:00 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
I just saw on ABC News that Australia's scientists are writing a letter to Australia's politicians asking them to take action on climate change.

I wonder if Has been, individual, mhaze, Loudmouth, Bazz, Josephus, and all of those other AGW / climate change deniers will counter this by writing a letter from their group to Australia's politicians asking them NOT to take action on climate change.

They should, especially now that their golden boy Barnaby 'I don't want government in my life anymore' Joyce might be back on the front seat.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 3 February 2020 12:34:38 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
Hi Max.

When you say that people are not qualified to decide for themselves about climate change, are you referring to Greta Thurnberg inc. (yes, she has now trademarked her name) and Al Gore? What about AOC and Prince Charles?

One "dumbass denier" site I have watched claims that there is no university anywhere giving out diplomas in Paleoclimatology. Michael Mann is not a "climatologist", he is a physicist.

And once again you are bringing up your old todge about "peer reviewed science" without bothering to respond to what I wrote in my previous post. Your own side is now admitting that Michael Manne's iconic "peer reviewed" "hockey stick graph" has now been exposed as at best, sloppy science, at worst, absolute fraud. And the AIS, who at US government insistence investigated Manne's data and methodology, declared that it was the "peer review" process which was to blame for the bad science. To put it poetically, a very small group foxes who were besties with each other were "peer reviewing" the henhouse security.

In cases of extraordinary claims which will have extraordinary consequences on real people, it is just not good enough to have in house auditors who are friends with each examining each other's work.

As for climate alarmism being the central cause today of the loonie left, that fact so obvious that it hardly needs to be examined. HIGW is as PC as you can get. The virtue signallers all think that those whom believe in HIGW are smart and noble, and those who do not are unspeakably evil. It is not just neo socialists either. HIGW has become the boutique cause of every celebrity with a private jet and a super yacht. There is Greta, photographed with Arnie who has a whole warehouse full of muscle cars, SUV's, Humvees, and trucks. And there she is again with Leonardo, who cavorts around the world in his private jet to pick up his environmental awards. There is more hypocrisy among HIGW devotees than Hervey Weinstein giving a speech at the opening of a Rape Crisis Centre.
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 3 February 2020 1:58:45 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 thought the alarmists, would have started backing down by now.
I too have been observing the growing number of "courageous" people coming forward and debunking the GW CC fraud.
I say "courageous" because it takes courage to stand fast against a tsunami of people too gutless or ignorant or lazy to speak/know the truth about something, when it'so much easier and more comfortable to just agree and everyone gets on with there interactions with a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Those who were not included in the conversation previously are incensed that they know the truth but were not given the opportunity to engage in the debate, because they had opposing views to the alarmists, and this was not acceptable to the alarmists.
So it is that in the interest of truth, they are slowly stepping out and telling the world the truth.
And that is, that if we are going through a warming phase at the moment, it is quite normal.
It will follow that some few hundred years from now it will peak and begin heading back down into a cooling phase.
Next, CO2 is not the evil gas it is made out to be, it is part of our atmosphere.
It also changes with time, no-one knows what the norm for CO2 is.
We did not cause any harm to the planet.
Any localised degradation is minuscule when taken in context.
We do not have to change a thing about our lives, and lifestyles.
Because of this, I suggest everyone disregard any alarmists and their sick and twisted mantra, and just get on with their lives, as they have been doing before all this fraud came along.
Take a peak at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 3 February 2020 2:57:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,
I’ll pass on you rotating to Michael Crichton’s youtube until you answer why Tony Heller misrepresented a government climate agency on the pre1980’s data. Sorry, but the quality of data they were after just wasn’t there – the fire agencies said so themselves.

Denial video’s spreading on youtube? Wow, I’ll call the papers! Also spreading, flat earth society and conspiracy theory videos. And cats, don’t forget cats. And don’t forget click-bait as a motive to get any chance of some advertising revenue because as since the “Ad-pocalypse” it has become harder to earn money on Youtube. Maybe Denial is an earner?

A few posts back I never said Mann’s hockey stick was completely undone but refined and clarified further, exploring well known issues like the RWP and MWP etc and refining according to new evidence about various proxies. You can google all these issues - I don’t know why you’re so confused about it.

>In cases of extraordinary claims which will have extraordinary consequences on real people, it is just not good enough to have in house auditors who are friends with each examining each other's work.

Which is why your assertions and tinfoil hat theories are so utterly retarded. Think about what you wrote and about the sheer size of the modern scientific enterprise studying all this! Think about the many different universities and labs and agencies and individual scientists all studying it. If one young scientist could actually PROVE, as in actually demonstrate that there was nothing to worry about could you imagine the Nobel prize he or she would get?

Sorry, but climate change as conspiracy is just one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. I’m still waiting on the evidence that the climate science itself is a socialist conspiracy.

All you’ve done is assert the “caring left” (as Jordan Peterson describes it) cares about this as an issue. Caring people care! It’s what they do. Plastic, famine, koalas, fires, you name it.

But I’ve seen no evidence that the science itself is corrupted.
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 3 February 2020 2:57:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max, I think I found the missing link.
You keep talking about the planet warming.
I think this was established early on that even though there is some reluctance towards it, it is generally accepted that it could be, especially since we are in a warming phase of the planet.
What was sneaked in to make it appear sinister, was the introduction of the human factor and that we have somehow caused this naturally occurring phenomena.
This is the lie!
What we did, or any contribution to GW or CC, by mankind, was at best negligible.
So the debate then should be about whether or not we have introduced bad things to hurt the planet.
Well it turns out that on that question we are safe, because all the so called pollutants have been policed decades ago, so we do not need to fear anything from what little pollution we emit.
Remember most of it is H2O, the rest is partly CO2.
As 70% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen, I think we have a long way to go before we need to panic, if ever.
Just thought I'd throw this one in the mix, for the hell of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzLFZBb-n5U
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 3 February 2020 3:23:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Max.

I have already answered your query about the US Forrest Service and I am not going to repeat myself just because you did not like the answer.

As for Michael Crichton, don't watch it if you don't want to. Ignorance is bliss. I only posted it because I was seriously concerned about you and how stupid you are going to look when it finally dawns on you that you were wrong all along. Michael Creighton was a believer like you, who has moderated his position because he is a scientist himself. He knows that the science does not support the idea of CO2 being the only reason for the earth's present warming period and he doubts if catastrophe will ever come anyway. He is not selling his beach house.

You are admitting that Manne's infamous "hockey stick" is undergoing a makeover because it was full of errors. But you are still refusing to admit that the essential point is that if Manne's research has to be redone to supposedly "correct" the errors, then Manne's "hockey stick was either very bad science or a calculated fraud. That does not say much for your precious "peer review" argument, does it?

Now you are claiming that all over the world, scientists are studying this. Why would they need to do that if we have already been told that "the science is settled?" Obviously, the science has not been settled. And as ALTRAV so helpfully displayed with his last link, the "97% consensus" is as big a fraud as Manne's hockey stick graph.

I hope I am still around when famous future authors write books about HIGW and name it as the biggest scientific fraud in history. And you can hope that nobody remembered how you were one of the biggest advocates for this fraud which is seriously damaging the deep respect for science that has developed among the public. There is still time to wise up and jump ship. You can then say that you are a social progressive instead of what you are now, a social regressive.
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 3 February 2020 5:26:05 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
LEGO,
Your ‘answer’ was the US Forrest Service is in on the ‘Conspiracy’, in a country whose President thinks climate change is rubbish. Hmmm, yeah, great answer! (Face palms and shakes head!) I have tried.

Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph has been verified by countless studies from all over the world that study things like the MWP or RWP or whatever. The shaft has a few bumps on it, but none higher than the toe. I have tried.

Right now you’re siding with a Sci-Fi author rather than every National Academy of Science on the planet! I have tried.

And then you misquote me just for a rise.

> “You are admitting that Manne's infamous "hockey stick" is undergoing a makeover”

That’s it. I’ve tried to speak with you honestly but you’re intentionally misstating my arguments just to get a rise.

I’ve asked you to justify certain opinions like providing EVIDENCE that it’s all a Socialist plot, but … you think commenting on political sympathies somehow demonstrates the architects of the fraud in the SCIENCE? I have tried.

You’re too repetitive. Every time I see a bunch of your blah blah blah without a link to verify your opinions, I just sigh.

You’re too predictable, and are backing away from failed older arguments and are starting to rotate again. Then you become a sulky bitch if I don’t indulge you FURTHER and watch MORE of your crap!

Seriously, repeat yourself much? It got boring the first 20 times! Now I feel my IQ going down every time I click on the email and see it’s YOU that has ‘answered’. Except you haven’t. Again. I have tried.

Look dude, just sing “There’s no climate change!” 3 times, make sure to tap your ruby slippers together 3 times, and all your fantasies will come true. I’m done. You’ve BORED me out of bothering with you, you long winded repetitive tinfoil hat wearing looney.

Oh and every time science says something you don’t like, it’s a conspiracy. That’s LEGO’s LAW!

Better tighten that tinfoil hat!

Bye.
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 3 February 2020 6:05:48 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
Lego, thank you.
I'm sure I'm not the only one to be relieved if Max has decided to move on.
What is not possible to explain sometimes is that we are not privy to the answers to questions some commentors ask, because we did not get the info from official sources.
And of course when we are faced with someone who is set in their beliefs, no amount of proof or links or evidence will satisfy because historically it has been demonstrated, just like Max, that the info will be rejected without question or assessment, because the intended recipient already knows it will not feed his mantra.
I started on the fence, with an un-easy feeling that something was not right.
I was right, as time went on and between me researching and others submitting information debunking GW and CC, the evidence against GW and the alarmist movement began to grow, until I was satisfied I was on the right track, and so can now say that this is all an elaborate scam.
I have not yet discovered the basis of this scam, but I am more than convinced that money is at the root of it, as it always is.
It has caused a big shift in world economics in many fields, not just automotive.
So whoever stands to gain from this huge international re-arrangement of the world and it's status quo, is/are the ones behind this huge fraud.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 3 February 2020 6:51:02 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
Hi Max.

Michael Creighton is a scientist with a degree in Biological Anthropology and he is also a very successful writer and film producer. In addition, he was summa cum laude in his university studies which altogether means he is a very, very, smart bloke. This very smart scientist no longer accepts HIGW and says that the main driver of climate change is the sun, that anthropological CO2 is not as important, and says he is no longer a "catastrophist." Which just goes to show that summa cum laude Biological Anthropologists and electricians are a lot smarter than Sociologists.

I informed you that Michael Manne's graph caused such a storm of scientific criticism so bad that the US government ordered the AIS to investigate, and the AIS found that Manne's work was deeply flawed. So flawed that the IPCC had to reluctantly drop it from it's prominent place as their icon. You then informed me that some alarmists had gone to work trying to "correct" Manne's "research" to try and make it conform to the hockey stick again. That means you are tacitly admitting that Manne's "research" is shonky at best, and calculated fraud at worse. I know that Sociologists don't do much maths, but you should still be able to put 2+2 together and get the right answer.

The entire US Forest Service is no more responsible for any HIGW disinformation put out by some of it's politically correct leaders than the entire Australian Institute of Criminally is responsible for one of it's papers written by some fool which claimed that ethnic crime in Australia was a figment of the public's imagination. Or that the entire Victorian Police are responsible for it's politically appointed Chief Commissioner saying in public that African crime was just media exaggeration. Or that the entire NSW Police force is responsible for it's former head, the politically appointed Commissioner for NSW Police, Peter Ryan, claiming that NSW Police's own statistics had proved that the crime, drugs, and gun ridden Vietnamese suburb of Cabramatta had exactly the same crime rates as leafy, middle class Mosman.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 4 February 2020 3:04:45 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 spelt his name incorrectly. It's Michael Crichton, NOT Michael Creighton.

He is an Arts graduate. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree. Have a look at his profile on Wikipedia.

You are aware that Shadow Minister has been posting that Arts graduates are pedophiles?

If you think he is really smart because he has a BA then you must think that someone like me with a BA and 2 x MAs is an absolute genius. Thanks for the kudos.

Now run off and play silly buggers with Shadow Minister.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 4 February 2020 3:50:33 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
Mr Opinion, Michael Crighton graduated from Harvard in 1969 with an MD. He did work in hospitals during his Internship. He already had a Bachelors Degree in Biological Anthropology from Harvard. To graduate in Medicine, the student must complete Science.
He was certainly well qualified to expose the corruption of science as political powers sought to use it to follow their own ends.
His "Aliens caused Global Warming" from January of 2003 is well worth a read even if you do not agree with all that he says. Consider his discussion on how "passive smoking" became accepted as harmful.
Hopefully it would make you think more about how and why various scientific research projects receive such generous public funds to pursue ephemeral fantasies.
Posted by Jay Cee Ess, Tuesday, 4 February 2020 8:59:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay Cee Ess,

You really need to get your facts straight.

1. His surname is not spelt Crighton. It is Crichton.

2. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology in 1964.

3. This got him into grad school where he obtained an MD in 1969. But he never practised as a doctor. He spent his life as a writer and film maker.

You have distorted the facts to suit your own agenda. Keep doing it and people will catch you out every time. Do you want to end up like another Barnaby Joyce?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 4 February 2020 9:36:00 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
And thank you for your support too, ALTRAV. We will have to tag team again on another topic.

I for one am sorry if Max has left the arena because I was thoroughly enjoying this debate. The interesting thing about Max's delivery was how in the beginning he was so supercilious and exhibited great confidence that he would soon put all of these stupid, dumb deniers in their place. But he left the arena hurling curses and insults because he suddenly realised that the "deniers" he thinks are stupid are not the mentally deficient bogans and deplorables that he and his brahmin caste think that we are.

Max's basic position was that his side represented science and his opponents were anti science, so this would be easy. But he has never bothered to try and understand his opponents position so he was unaware of how much scientific ground the alarmists had lost in the last few years. Manne's "hockey stick" was a big one, which quite laughably, Max is still a believer in.

The sceptics case is now so strong that the alarmists have resorted to creating alarmist sites which specifically tried to answer the pointed questions about science that the sceptic sites have raised. This was obviously where Max got his information and he thought that all he needed to do was to repeat the arguments that the alarmist sites were submitting and it would be a walk over.

I was prepared to go along with his tactic and even respond to his links provided that there was a quid pro quo and he viewed and commented upon my evidence. But Max was having non of that. His view is that he is indisputably right, so he need not even take my evidence seriously. That was his big mistake. Once I realised he would not debate in good faith, and he was simply preaching and not debating, I simply went on the attack myself and stayed on the attack.

Other sites you may be interested in. (the first two Mark Steyn)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRgUulTv8og&t=1s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCM6e4Aujwo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 4 February 2020 9:39:12 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
Mr Opinion, granted on the spelling error. Fortunately, Mr Crichton is no longer around to be offended as much as you appear to be.
Mr Crichton did graduate as a doctor and did practice as one. To graduate the medical student must work within hospital environments as such for several years. So yes, he was a fully qualified scientist. And doctor.
The annual insurance premiums as a writer compared to practicing medicine make that an easy choice.
Have you actually read, and understood his point, in how SETI caused global warming?
I have not distorted any facts to suit any particular agenda apart from seeking to place the full story in view.
Posted by Jay Cee Ess, Tuesday, 4 February 2020 9:54:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay Cee Ess, don't bother responding to Mr O, there is a rumour going round that he has to pick on even the most innocuous, petty and irrelevant details of any conversation.
He rarely get's it right, thereby making it difficult to have a mature and cohesive debate or discussion.
He, like his running mates, attack the messenger because they have no substance or facts to counter the message.
Anyway, as for the topic title; Are the bushfires a result of climate change?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Posted by ALTRAV, Tuesday, 4 February 2020 10:19:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Altrav, thanks for your comment. I had recognised that Mr O and his fellow traveler were of such content and refrained from engaging as it would serve no purpose and as you have said, moved eons away from the original Opinion piece.
Both Green and Opinion have admitted, nay, boasted, that they do not do science as such. This, to me, appears to be a common trait of those fighting for HIGW. As I write this the Extinction Rebellion protestors are locking them selves to the gates of the Queensland Parliament and see this as a legitimate method of claiming the validity of their GW/CC beliefs. Not a Science or Engineering degree or student among them.
Monday nights Media Watch on the ABC certainly had Paul Barry in a lather about how dare anyone in the media question HIGW/CC. He preaches to the likes of Mr's O and G.
Posted by Jay Cee Ess, Tuesday, 4 February 2020 10:54:45 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 for correcting my spelling of Michael Crichton's name, Mr Opinion, you have managed to win one point against me.

I looked at Michael Crichton's profile on wiki and it said that he dropped out of literature at Harvard and studied biological anthropology instead. He is a frocked scientist. He is also an Doctor of medicine although how he got that I don't know. Wiki said that he dropped out of med school. Perhaps he went back later?

Why don't you test your own convictions and listen to what this brilliant man, who was once a supporter of yours, has to say about HIGW now? One lark may not make a spring, but Michael Crichton is another example of how you are losing support for your views. And the people who are turning away are not dummies, they are smarties. There are a lot of debates on youtube now where well behaved participants and audiences conduct debates on this important topic without screaming at each other.

Here is Michael Crichton and he is an honest, impartial broker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0&t=385s

And here is is again on the "hockey stick graph

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cecmvYq_91A

As for thinking that you and Max are geniuses, no I definitely don't don't think that at all. I am not aware that Shadow Minister thinks that all Artz Grads are paedophiles, I think he might have been just reflecting the very low opinions most members of the working class have for such people. I think I have only directed one post to you on this topic but I gave up on you immediately when you responded by simply making declarations unsupported by either evidence or reasoned argument. You will have to do a lot better than that.

Max might have been so convinced that he was right that he made absolutist declarations too, But at least he occasionally put up an argument that I could deconstruct and deal with.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 4 February 2020 3:06:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

To quote Mr 0 - "Arts graduates are pedophiles"

Two can play at that game.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 5 February 2020 7:11:32 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
Shadow Minister,

Why do you have to resort to lying?

Everyone knows that what I wrote was a quote of what you had said. I would never make that claim.

You truly are an engineer! And belong in the scum bucket!
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 5 February 2020 7:51:50 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
Mr 0

You are one lying through your teeth. You know absolutely that I never said what you claimed.

My quote of what you said was cut directly from your post, you can't even claim that. You have lived in the scum bucket too long.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 5 February 2020 8:38:45 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
Jay Cee Ess, ALTRAV & LEGO,

Are you people actually aware that you distort the facts in order to win your argument?

People can see what you are doing and they will pick holes in your arguments.

But that doesn't seem to worry you because you all appear to have something very childlike about you that would make it a waste of time to have a mature discussion with you.

BTW What do you think of Shadow Minister lying about people? Do you reckon we should put him in the scum bucket?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 5 February 2020 8:43:23 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
Shadow Minister,

Here is what you posted on Thursday, 30 January 2020 in 'Its Time, for a Federal ICAC.':

"Mr 0,

I have answered your question eloquently more than once but clearly you are either too obtuse or stupid to grasp.

The answer to "why graduate engineers look down their noses at the 90% of engineers who do not have degrees." is simple and in small words is mostly they don't and certainly in my experience there are very few that do.

A question for you is why are arts graduates pedophiles?

Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 30 January 2020 3:47:13 AM"

NOW ........... WHO'S THE LIAR?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 5 February 2020 8:53:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr O, on-one is lying!
No-one is whatever it is you say they are.
These aborations are a manifestation of your somewhat unstable mental, emotional and insecure mind set.
Max, is it possible you suffered some trauma as a child and this may be the root cause of your inability to interact with others at a level of equal footing.
I am not being facetious, I am curious, because there are some unusual emotions and reasoning being displayed here on OLO by certain others, which I find interesting but also of some concern.
Anyway, it's none of our business, so until or unless you decide to share, we can only continue to respond to you in the manner you display, which is very petulant and somewhat child-like.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 5 February 2020 9:51:20 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
ALTRAV,

You are starting to sound like your whole world is coming apart at the seams.

Sorry about your friend Shadow Minister but he has been caught out as a liar. So, into the scum bucket with him!
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 5 February 2020 10:13:03 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
Mr 0,

Clearly you were lying, and you have now just proved that you misquoted me.

What more could you expect from an illiterate arts graduate.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 5 February 2020 10:14:05 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
Shadow Minister,

Here is what you posted on Thursday, 30 January 2020 in 'Its Time, for a Federal ICAC.':

"Mr 0,

I have answered your question eloquently more than once but clearly you are either too obtuse or stupid to grasp.

The answer to "why graduate engineers look down their noses at the 90% of engineers who do not have degrees." is simple and in small words is mostly they don't and certainly in my experience there are very few that do.

A question for you is why are arts graduates pedophiles?

Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 30 January 2020 3:47:13 AM"

YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO IS LYING AND TRYING TO COVER UP FOR YOUR FAUX PAS.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Thursday, 6 February 2020 8:41:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 39
  7. 40
  8. 41
  9. All

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