How could Climate Scientists have arrived at the conclusions they did when this important factor was unknown to them.

We also therefore have to assume there may be other things they do not know that would cause changes in weather and climate.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/mysterious-radioactive-heat-source-slowly-melting-ice-230604778.html

Mysterious radioactive heat source slowly melting ice.

Kilometres beneath the ice of Antarctica, a radioactive heat source is slowly melting it from underneath, researchers believe.

Researchers flew planes over the ice using radar to “see” three kilometres beneath the ice, where the hot material seems to be slowly melting the ice.

The researchers believe the heat source is radioactive rocks and hot water from inside Earth’s crust.

While Antarctica isn’t going to melt away overnight, it could have important knock-on effects when combined with climate change, according to new measurements by the British Antarctic Survey (BAS).

Researcher Tom Jordan believes the process of melting observed has likely been going on for thousands or maybe even millions of years, but isn’t directly contributing to “ice sheet change”.

“However, in the future the extra water at the ice sheet bed may make this region more sensitive to external factors such as climate change,” he said.

“This was a really exciting project, exploring one of the last totally un-surveyed regions on our planet.

“Our results were quite unexpected, as many people thought this region of Antarctica was made of ancient and cold rocks, which had little impact on the ice sheet above,” Mr Jordan said.

“We show that even in the ancient continental interior, the underlying geology can have a significant impact on the ice.”

Obviously.
They could've chosen to be anything, but were stupid enough to choose a career as a climate scientist;
Doesn't that speak for itself regarding their 'calculations'?

Come on Phillip.

Climate scientists don't do calculations. They decide what headline they want, then bodge up something that looks like calculations to give the required result. This is why they don't release any research. They know no one could replicate the myth they are presenting.

Armchair Critic I believe you are wrong, there is big money to be made if you as a scientist believe it.

If you as a scientist don't believe it, no government is funding research to prove it is false.

BUT to be serious how many other factors might they not know, they know about solar flares from the sun but what if there are other things the instruments they are using can't detect.

>How could Climate Scientists have arrived at the conclusions they did when this important factor was unknown to them.

Important factor? The temperature of rocks under Antarctica is a relatively trivial factor. It won't have much effect on the climate, All it means is less warming is required to produce a big use in sea level.

>We also therefore have to assume there may be other things they do not know that would cause changes in weather and climate.

Of course, just as they do.

But crucially, it doesn't justify ignoring what they do know.

>If you as a scientist don't believe it, no government is funding research to prove it is false.

Nor should they - governments should fund research into finding out what is happening, not to prove a predetermined conclusion. Though of course there are plenty of fossil fuel companies willing to fund research to prove it is false.

But the data supports the same conclusion as the theory. And importantly, when the scientific papers are peer reviewed, mistakes have always been found in those that reach the opposite conclusion.

>what if there are other things the instruments they are using can't detect

Undetectable things are unlikely to have a big impact, otherwise they'd be easy to detect.

Bleeding science! who do they think they are
We have tried and true methods to tell us what is going on and they overlook them
Goats entrails
They for centuries have guided us and we are far from short of goats.
Still even if the next goats guts tell us something is going on, that we may be effecting our climate, we will say it is not true

I don't get it . BAS says there is climate change and melting. This science doesn't fit denial .

".. combined with climate change, according to new measurements by the British Antarctic Survey (BAS)."

The mid-Atlantic Ridge and Pacific vulcanism have been heating stuff for longer than gold-fish can remember. It's undeniable.

Climate change is ongoing & there's nothing we can do about it !
Anyone ever heard of evolution ?
Just because it doesn't suit us doesn't mean it's not real.

//This is why they don't release any research.//

They release heaps of research:

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=climate+science+journals&oq=climate+science+journals&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.7807j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Which you presumably ignore because you don't read scientific journals. Which is fair enough, there's thousands of the buggers and I don't read them all either. But to claim the research doesn't exist because you personally have not read the journal articles which detail said research is nonsense on stilts.

//there is big money to be made if you as a scientist//

Wow, some people really will believe anything.

Science really isn't that well-paying a profession. If people want big money, they should study law instead. Or forget about studying altogether, become a professional athlete, and get paid bazillions to chase a bit of inflated leather around a paddock for an hour or so once a week.

//no government is funding research to prove it is false.//

Yep, that research is being done by the private sector, who tend to pay better than government grants. It's still not great pay, mind you.

//what if there are other things the instruments they are using can't detect.//

Things like the sound of one hand clapping, trees falling in forests, that sort of thing?

Scientists leave those things for navel gazers to ponder and get on with their job.

I note that this phenomenon was reported in conjunction with climate change. There was nothing about 'this is it - everything else is wrong'.

All the climate crooks' lies will continue. Every time nature proves that their cause and effect theories were completely wrong, they invent a new lie.

ttbn
Your logic seems a bit wonky . Can you connect your two thought?

"How could Climate Scientists have arrived at the conclusions they did when this important factor was unknown to them." Philip S. November 2018.

"Researcher Tom Jordan believes the process of melting observed has likely been going on for thousands or maybe even millions of years, but isn’t directly contributing to “ice sheet change”. However, in the future the extra water at the ice sheet bed may make this region more sensitive to external factors such as climate change,” he said."

The AGW conclusions are about now . The radioactivity has been part of the ancient balance of heat /cooling. It may affect the future increased glacial flows from AGW .

The article doesn't dismiss global warming but only suggests that "it could have important knock-on effects when combined with climate change" plus but it "isn’t directly contributing to ice sheet change”.

It also doesn't address the measured increase in carbon in the atmosphere or other factors at work.

There is also no detail about the research itself or whether it's definitive.

This constant grasping at straws is much like when health representatives tried to get the US Surgeon General to ban smoking because tobacco was a cancer-causing product. They failed because "not everyone who smokes gets cancer and not everyone with cancer has smoked. Therefore the science isn't settled" and all subsequent regulations have been behaviour-based and not scientifically proven beyond doubt, otherwise it would have been banned. It's called "blurring the science".

The same lobbyists who fought that battle for the tobacco industry are now behind the fossil fuel industry.

climate change deniers need to look for reasons they think like that
See soon even they will be hit with the truth the science is right
They could revert to the goat theory but make sure it is one grazing on the right side of the hill

yep we accept that babies in wombs are not human despite biology proving 100% that they are and the big bang fantasy as science and wonder why the gullible accept the man made gw fantasy and deceit. Facts left 'science' a long time ago. What is fact is that much true science is no longer funded. Just listen to the absolute garbage and misinformation the warmist sprout while demonising anyone with half a brain.

Survey poll:

Which OLO posters read the article to mean that humans are not causing global warming?

Climate Change has become a very handy real issue smoke screen for the Leftist Politics. We can not do anything about it so why waffle on about it ? It's just so hypocritical.
I'm not a denier, I know there's a change & no vote for the left does anything except force the Conservatives to try & please some of those with no thought processes of their own.
Climate change is real, tell us what we can do about it !
During the last week's heatwave the coal-fired power stations did magnificent business from AC's with those who want to shut these power stations down.
ALP, LNP, Green, ON, Sex Party, Moron Party etc etc have nothing that can change climate change. Get this into you smart or stupid alike.

And there it is, just as predicted long ago!

First there was no warming.
Then there was warming but it had nothing to do with humans.
Then there was human induced warming but there's nothing that can be done do about it.
The next claim will surely be that there was warming but we were stopped from acting because of the lefties.

thanks for proving my point Rache.

NNN none, but, read the reasons some say Liberals lost in Victoria
THEN ask why would anything they say be right

Here's a list of some of the codswallop predictions by fear mongers that were to have occurred by the year 2000:

We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
The oceans would be dead.
Global Cooling would destroy the world.
Acid rain would destroy our forests.
Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.
We would deplete our natural resources.
We would run out of oil.
The polar ice caps would melt.
Manhattan would be underwater.
People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.
Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.
Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

Eighteen years later and ..... what?

thanks for proving my point Rache.
runner,
cheers for proving mine !

And there it is, just as predicted long ago!
rache,
So, what do we do about it ? Any wisecracks on solutions ? I didn't think so.
All the lefties do is talk about it but what are their solutions ?
Ah, I see, keep blaming the producers of the commodities you can't do without & which contribute to Global warming.
I'm asking you right here & now ! What is your solution to climate change ?
runner that goes for you also, c'mon cough up some ideas that work. We you're against cutting the population so what else have you got up your sleeve ?

"How could Climate Scientists have arrived at the conclusions"

They arrive at the conclusions thy want. For example, take the recent kerfuffle over the US climate assessment report . This report was based primarily upon the so-called RCP8.5 scenario. This makes projections about CO2 levels, population, technology and innovation that are so pessimistic that even IPCC have decided that it is no longer valid.

Yet if you WANT to arrive at pessimistic results then RCP8.5 is the way to go. All the most scary predictions in previous IPCC reports were based on RCP8.5.

Why those making the US assessement would use it is ONLY explained by a desire to arrive at pre-conceived answers.

"And importantly, when the scientific papers are peer reviewed, mistakes have always been found in those that reach the opposite conclusion."

Always? A touch of hyperbole there Aidan. The victory of ideology over facts.

But it is probably true that more errors are found in sceptic papers than alarmist papers, primarily because one gets thoroughly vetted and the other gets accepted without anyone bothering to check. Perhaps read the history of the consensus paper Gergis et al 2013 to see how even major errors are missed when the conclusions are approved. Or look at the more recent Resplandy et al paper which was again, it was claimed, peer reviewed only to have a non-climate scientist find errors in the first page of the paper which, even the authors accept, totally invalidated the paper.

When climate papers reach the 'right' conclusion,they are peer- rubber stamped. Sceptic papers are checked up and down and rejected for even the most frivolous reasons or, often, for no reason at all.

But even after all that many such papers get through uncensored. Not even close to all have errors uncovered.

To give a flavour as to how many such papers are out there that you never hear about because of the need to protect the narrative check this list (one of many such lists)...
http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2018-3/

For even more fun check this one out....

http://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/?fbclid=IwAR0UrPm-Jkg0TBzdi3oyTbmRHfpEiyv9_uL8aVzHk-2CpZFVLHD2fXC9mDo

Don't sell your overcoats just yet.

Don't follow the graphs . Buy Bitcoin .And overcoats.

Hey Philip S,
"I believe you are wrong, there is big money to be made if you as a scientist believe it.
If you as a scientist don't believe it, no government is funding research to prove it is false."

Well argued.
(I jumped the gun early and responded to your headline, before I read the content in your opening post
- sorry if my first comment didn't make much sense.)

"BUT to be serious how many other factors might they not know, they know about solar flares from the sun but what if there are other things the instruments they are using can't detect."

The following question MAY sound stupid; but it's actually intended to be stupid AND serious at the same time, and it supports your argument, well kind of, or - maybe not, I'm not sure; Well I don't actually know...

- 'Have we factored in the effects of human and animal flatulence into the climate data models' -

I personally (and what do I know) tend to think in terms of 1/ solar output 2/ earths current orbit and the degree tilt on its axis as the two main factors determining earths climate - neither of which have anything to do with us - at all; but finally 3/ yes humans can (and often do) mess stuff up.

- If anyone can turn forests into a deserts and destroy ocean breeding habitats, you guessed it, it's us.

There is no 'solution' to climate change; the climate will continue changing as it always has. Puny humans didn't cause it, nor can they they 'fix' it.

mhaze,
>Always? A touch of hyperbole there Aidan. The victory of ideology over facts.
No, I mean it. Literally always, when a scientific paper purports to invalidate the consensus view on climate, it's found to be because of errors.

That doesn't mean the papers that support the consensus are error free, though. And nor is it anything to do with ideology. It's simply because errors in dissenting papers are easier to spot - just examine the reason for the discrepancy and check the validity of the assumptions and calculations.

Note that the papers in your first link don't purport to invalidate the consensus view. As for your second link, I hope she's right as it would make the problem far less urgent. However, considering the observed breakdown of the link between temperatures and solar activity in the late 20th century, I'm far from convinced.

There is no 'solution' to climate change;
ttbn,
The Left seems to think if we all voted Labor then that'd fix climate change.

Belly
You say noone thinks the article is against AGW. However the topic starts "How could Climate Scientists have arrived at the conclusions they did when this important factor was unknown to them. We also therefore have to assume there may be other things they do not know that would cause changes in weather and climate."

It's like saying that unknown aspects of arthritis mean that arthritis treatments don't work. It's known that radioactivity causes about half the internal heat around the planet . Its presence in Antarctica had not been recorded but radioactivity didn't start melting ice just in the past 2 centuries. So it's irrelevant to climate conclusions on today's AGW.

" when a scientific paper purports to invalidate the consensus view on climate, it's found to be because of errors. "

Well I guess it depends on what you mean by "consensus view".

But if you think that the papers I linked aren't opposing the consensus view then we probably have a different view on what the consensus view is.

Perhaps you could give an example of a now debunked paper that sought to debunk the consensus view.

Looks as though some people are more concerned about the wording of some dimwit academic article than climate change.
Are the "educated" getting overwhelmed by the realisation that we can't stop climate change so they now try yet another diversion just to keep Govt funding flowing into their pockets.
We've had examples in the recent past where dimwit politicians gave away many of our tax dollars but i don't think they expected any more than votes in return.
Climate change happens anyway.

So individual you don't comprehend that meltwater under heated glaciers raises the effect and costs of coastal flooding? Antarctica's melt rate is rising rapidly.

Posted by individual, Thursday, 29 November 2018 5:28:15 PM:
"And there it is, just as predicted long ago!
rache,
So, what do we do about it ? ...
I'm asking you right here & now ! What is your solution to climate change ?"
My response:
While school children are busily 'striking' (or 'avoiding learning') - in the cause of Kyoto and combating climate change (and Labor is myopically focused on technology-based 'alternative' counter-measures), 'Scomo' has missed a brilliant opportunity to put forward the most effective and productive alternative Australia could possible offer: that of massively expanding our agricultural production - by embracing Barnaby Joyce's idea of channeling vast quantities of Oz's excess northern fresh water (rainfall) towards the south, for a grand irrigation development of a portion of the extensive semi-arid landscape with which Oz is blessed, and lies begging for attention and occupation.
Such a scheme could be undertaken in easy stages, to tap an unparalleled opportunity for Oz to embrace the world's best and most productive counter-measure to greenhouse gas emissions - the exploitation of the massive natural potentials of large-scale food production.
Visualize expanses of solar-supported greenhouses, and a small-scale coal-fired power station whose emissions are scrubbed and the CO2 content pumped directly to enhance plant growth and the production of oil-producing algae for on-site biodiesel fuel production, leading ultimately to broad-acre cereal and pasture production and the establishment of a series of self-sustaining satellite cities.
The stumbling block is the provision of the masses of biomass fertilizer required to support these horticultural and agricultural facilities. This would ultimately most likely (and productively) have to be sourced from the effluents of our existing cities.
Possible? Inevitable?
Who's got the ticker, and the vision?
Colonies on Mars? Or, tackling escalating food demand (and future shortage) head-on - sustainably, environmentally-friendly and climate positive?
Our bed, and we will have to lie in it. Our choice - while it exists.

Oh, for the deniers and heads-in-the-sanders:
Look around you, buddies; Rome is burning and you're busy nit-picking.
Glaciers don't melt or recede because of some heat-source below the Arctic ice-cap (or because of an occasional solar flare), and the Great Barrier Reef isn't in trouble because two cows burped.
Over-population is a reality, food shortage exists in portions of the planet, weather extremes are becoming more frequent and extensive, refugee mass-migration isn't occurring because some people felt like a walk, and plastic is a problem.
What's plastic pollution got to do with climate change? Nothing, but it also is real.
Migration? Would you care to live where they come from?
Can we do better - for all of humanity, for the environment, for biodiversity, for the planetary ecosystem? We had better - or line-up for the next NASA shuttle to ..?
Capitalism is undeniably productive; but if it can be geared fully toward cooperation rather than competition, then it could be sensational, mind-blowing, and the ultimate expression of forward human evolution towards genuine humanity.
I love our planet, but I deplore the way so many mistreat it (and then deny any wrongdoing or any responsibility). Denial is complicity.

you naughty man , Denial is complicity. You deny that radioactivity melts icewater under Antarctica.

If humans are the cause of the climate change problem reducing humans is probably going to be the most effective solution. All sides of politics would therefore need to promote population reducing strategies.

the gw alarmist have shown they have as much chance of getting predictions right as Wayne Swan or Labour have of getting a budget surplus.

goats entrails runner, the answer can be found there unless you and those like you are victims of a hoax by owners of fossil fuel

Warren Buffett is rich enough and untouchable enough to be honest about the climate swindle and rent-seekers benefitting from it. He recently said:

“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms.That’s the only reason to build them.They don’t make sense without the tax credit”.

I just read a headline of school children in Melbourne getting out of the classroom & marching for action on climate change with chants of "ScoMo has to go".
This should be looked into by some commission. To take school children & so openly brainwash them is in my opinion a criminal offense.
Whoever approved this march should be made accountable in a court of Law.
To demand that "something" should be done by the Morrisson Govt in regard to climate change is not only stupid to the highest degree but also hyporcritical to the highest degree.
Any supporters of this illegal march tell us here & now what is "something" ?
I find this the most hateful & criminal Leftist stunt yet.

Warren Buffet learnt about weather from the newspapers he sold as a kid and became a scientist. Bachelor of Science in Business Administration. He tried selling the Russian Arctic to the Soviet Union but they said it was over-heated.

I agree Individual- The left don't like ScoMo because he isn't Liberal he's Conservative. But sadly Liberalism is the reason we believe we are "free" to exploit the environment in Patrick Deneen's view. Many of the people in the Liberal Party sadly have Economically Liberal Values- Turnbull in theory would perhaps be more dangerous to the natural environment coming from the "small l liberals"/ Free Traders.

Conservative members make up about 40% of the Liberal Party because of the history of the movement since the medieval age. My understanding is Conservatives are the traditional/ monarchy supporters, Free Traders are the business people that obtained power after the industrial revolution- new money vs old money. The left are loosely the ones without money historically- but tradies today are some of the best paid

Overall both Labor and Liberals have eco-cidal policies. The Green's are not an eco party in my view- they are watermelons- Red on the inside- Trotskyists- more concerned about refugees and immigration than the environment. The way the reduce environmental impact is to reduce the number of people in the world. Patrck Deneen says that the reason we are in our current environmental situation is because of our desire to control our environment but mostly policy makers want to create a fix of the same means- a technological fix. He points to the irony of doing the same things and expecting a different result.

To take school children & so openly brainwash them is in my opinion a criminal offense. My monarchist parents sent me to a school which told HRH Prince Robert Menzies that the school votes Liberal. Hopefully the kids today will march in 3 columns down the main street carrying broom-sticks on their shoulders, "Shoot Shortern".

Aidan Quote "The temperature of rocks under Antarctica is a relatively trivial factor. It won't have much effect on the climate, All it means is less warming is required to produce a big use in sea level."

"Researcher Tom Jordan believes the process of melting observed has likely been going on for thousands or maybe even millions of years, but isn’t directly contributing to “ice sheet change”.

BUT he contradicts that statement at the end by saying "We show that even in the ancient continental interior, the underlying geology can have a significant impact on the ice."

Aidan "But the data supports the same conclusion as the theory." You are wrong the climate models that were calibrated to today's 20th century observed records but when they went to the 21st century the results were way off because the data imputed was incorrect.

Aidan "what if there are other things the instruments they are using can't detect

Undetectable things are unlikely to have a big impact, otherwise they'd be easy to detect."

Again to me you are wrong it could be possible that an effect caused by something unknown is blamed on something else.

Belly - Simply go away with your stupid comments, "Goats entrails They for centuries have guided us and we are far from short of goats." GROW UP.

mhaze - Some good points.

ttbn Quote "There is no 'solution' to climate change; the climate will continue changing as it always has. Puny humans didn't cause it, nor can they they 'fix' it."

I think you are wrong with this part "nor can they they 'fix' it." because we are concentrating on HUMANS did it they are not looking at the natural causes.
Volcanoes erupting do more damage than we do, why don't they look at stopping them from erupting. The eruptions are cause by a built up of pressure within the volcano so why not drill or blowout the side of the volcano to relive the pressure, the lava will come out but in a controlled way and no massive explosions that blot out the sun for weeks

Toni Lavis You are nothing but a TROLL, you make outlandish claims without thinking and false statements BUT when you are called out you run away and don't come back to support your claims.
Until you can own your comments you will not in future be acknowledged ( Be good if others who have been trolled by Toni Lavis do the same )

Just a reminder you have failed to answer these.

Toni Lavis On Friday November 16th you posted Quote.

"Why does the Daily Mail bother printing this crap? And why do people accept it as gospel when it's obvious bollocks?"

In response to a media report that said "Nauru's President Baron Waqa told The Australian that life on Nauru is much cheaper, allowing refugees holidays to Fiji, healthcare, free housing and jobs."

I replied to you with this response. "If it is a lie I guarantee it will quickly be called out in the media, or by the refugee advocates if they do you are right, if they do not it is you who is talking crap.
To be reviewed in a few days to determine who is right."

It has now been 14 days and not one article or media release calling out the article as being false or misleading, so it is evident it is you who are wrong.

You conveniently missed this one as well.

Toni Lavis Quote "Bail is a ridiculous and offensive notion"

When it comes to making stupid comments without first thinking about all the implications you get first prize.

1st You don't seem to take into account the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

2nd The prisons and police watch houses would be full in one day if every shoplifter, petty thief etc was locked up till their appointed court date. Any crime where a penalty notice could not be issued.

So how about thinking about it for a while and come back with a more reasoned comment.

Take responsibility for your comments don't just run away, as stated before your credibility now is ZERO, who can believe what you say.

"..but isn’t directly contributing to “ice sheet change”. BUT he contradicts that statement at the end by saying "We show that even in the ancient continental interior, the underlying geology can have a significant impact on the ice."

Melt-water sitting still is an impact without changing ice sheets.
In any case , a constant radioactivity for millenia is not logically causing a rapid change in global ice .

Unless Putin dumped nuclear waste to flood Ukraine and Florida.

My understanding is Conservatives are the traditional/ monarchy supporters,
Canem malum,
Mentalities have changed in the past 100 years, some for the better, many for worse.
Todays Conservatives don't give a hoot about the Monarchy but see the Monarchy as a lesser threat than the devoid of sanity regressive progressives.
Anyhow, this is besides the point in this. The point here is that Leftists have hijacked highly impressionable students to make a show of an issue as emotional as it is but for which they only ever have the do "something" argument.
I just hope that there'll be some switched on parents who will sue the organisers for so blatantly brainwash the students into portraying the Conservative side of politics as so disregarding of the environment.
The heads of the school Principals should roll over this. They simply went too far this time.
Again I ask any Leftists to tell us here & now what they expect ANY Govt to do about climate change which is an evolutionary phenomenon.
If any of these insipids can suggest a solution than tell the world because a solution is needed for GW & the perpetuating of stupidity in the Leftist orientated education system.

//Toni Lavis You are nothing but a TROLL, you make outlandish claims without thinking and false statements BUT when you are called out you run away and don't come back to support your claims.//

Is there a reason you're singling me out for stalking, Phil? The obsessive behaviour is getting a bit creepy.

You seem very desperate for attention, and for some reason, attention from me in particular. Is there something you're not telling me, hun? Something you really want to tell me you're scared to? It's OK, let it out... OLO is a safe, sharing space.

I mean, I'm sure I'm not the only chap around here that has had odd the post go unanswered when they were hoping for a response... but is it really reasonable to expect everyone to hang off our every word, unless we're the actual Pope or something?

//It has now been 14 days and not one article or media release calling out the article as being false or misleading, so it is evident it is you who are wrong.//

I didn't say the article was false or misleading, I said that President Waqa's comments were bollocks. I believe the Daily Mail quoted him accurately, and I believe that his quotes were abject nonsense and barefaced lies... bear in mind that man is a politician.

I was questioning why the Daily Mail considered it good journalism to report nonsense rather than the accuracy of their reporting, although on reflection I suppose it is in the public interest to hear politicians talking crap, so I withdraw that criticism.

//So how about thinking about it for a while and come back with a more reasoned comment.//

Actually, I think this video sums up my views on this topic quite well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

And I still think bail is bollocks... if you don't want to be in jail, it's really not that hard to avoid it: don't be a dick and don't be a crook, and you'll be sweet.

Oh, and don't expect this to be start of something beautiful. I humoured you because I was worried you were going to blow a fuse and have some sort of breakdown from the way you've been carrying on.... but I won't be endlessly indulging your narcissism either; that won't help you. If I fail to respond to something you post which you feel urgently demands my immediate attention, it's probably because I'm busy, haven't read it, or just can't be bothered responding... I recommend you get over yourself, because the world does not revolve around you or your half-baked ideas.

"climate change which is an evolutionary phenomenon."
Could be , dinosaurs gave way to warm-blooded mammoths . Don't know how they got mammoths eating flowers in the snow but that's evolution for you. Ice is so yesterday.

Toni Lavis Quote "the world does not revolve around you or your half-baked ideas"

Never said it did.

Now you just opened your mouth without thinking, please advise what these so called "half-baked ideas" are?

As I stated before you are nothing but a little TROLL.

Even your response is exactly what would be expected from a troll who has been caught out.

Quote "I believe that his quotes were abject nonsense and barefaced lies" 14 days and no one has come out to challenge him so it would seem he was telling the truth, fact is you got it very wrong.

From now on I am going to point out your stupid comments, you are welcome to do the same to me if you can find any, but make sure you can back up your idiotic comments.

//Toni Lavis Quote "the world does not revolve around you or your half-baked ideas"

Never said it did.//

Never said you said it did. But you sure act like you think it does.

//As I stated before you are nothing but a little TROLL.//

Right, just out of interest, what do you think your habit of constantly attacking other posters for being so-called 'trolls' make you?

//14 days and no one has come out to challenge him so it would seem he was telling the truth//

No, that isn't how it works. Things that are demonstrably false don't magically become true if they go unchallenged in the Daily Mail for a fortnight.

Let's say the Mail quotes Alice as saying 'The moon is made of green cheese', and nobody challenges that quote because what's the point, it's obviously ridiculous, everybody knows the moon isn't made of green cheese. Because the quote is never challenged in print, after the required 14 days, does the Moon suddenly transmute to green cheese? No, no it does not.

In exactly the same way, when President Whatshisface is quoted as saying that Nauru is giving out free holidays, houses, jobs and healthcare, it's obviously ridiculous. As has already been pointed out to you, the economy of Nauru is well and truly stuffed. Can't get blood out of a stone, Phil. They haven't got the money for free housing and healthcare. They haven't got jobs to give. And as for free overseas holidays... I mean really, how are we supposed to take that one seriously? Do any well developed countries with strong economies that take in refugees free overseas holidays such as Australia, Canada, Germany etc. give them free overseas holidays? Of course they don't. It's a laughable idea.

So on the face of it, President Whatshisface's claims seem quite implausible and rather extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and since I've seen no proof - not even the ordinary kind - to support these claims, I see no reason to believe them.

//From now on I am going to point out your stupid comments, you are welcome to do the same to me if you can find any//

Jesus, I don't have time to point out every stupid comment you make, I'd never get aught else done.

Philip S
Your whole topic is an error. "How could Climate Scientists have arrived at the conclusions they did when this important factor was unknown to them. "

Permanent radioactivity is irrelevant to recent increased melting.

Individual- Friday, 30 November 2018 7:37:01 PM

Answer- You're correct here overall. Most people don't seem to understand what Conservative (and Classical Liberalism) means- and so I tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to explain the concept succinctly- difficult task given the history and machinations and motivations over the last several hundred years.

Further-

*Three main political groups- based around the industrial revolution.

Conservatives - Original rulers and those that support this structure.

Capitalists - Those that sought power following the industrial revolution. Want free reign to expand- Economic Libertarianism.

Communists - Those that sought power in response to the rising power of Capitalists. The New Left evolved from Trotskyism. Saw an opportunity in the growth of capital to increase individual freedom- Social Libertarianism.

___

These ideas of Liberalism (as opposed to Conservatism) are apparently rooted in theories by John Locke 1632-1704- father of Liberal Democracy (influenced the US Declaration of Independence 1776), John Stuart Mill 1806-1873- On Liberty, and others.

Man in a free state of nature is seen by Locke as the goal of government where as Hobbes saw the state of nature as a vast conflict to be avoided. This conflict between those that see man as essentially "good or bad" is played out on many stages- it perhaps can be encapsulated in the "responsibility verses freedom" or "cooperation verses competition" arguments. If man is essentially without virtue then his freedom should be restricted, if essentially virtuous should be allowed to be free. And so on...
The devil is usually in the detail- there is talk about "mob rule" and Bentham's Utilitarianism, every philosopher it seems has something to say about governing. But the Nihilists do offer something special...;

But perhaps the goal of government is to keep the devil from the doors of the governed. But the devil and the doors are different for everyone but still we have a history leading back to nature that we rely upon for guidance. Some say that there isn't good and bad but just different types of good. Also - you shouldn't try to improve upon nature- most see the same devils but argue about the solutions.

I hope that you have become sufficiently confused to do something.

"Over-population is a reality, food shortage exists in portions of the planet, weather extremes are becoming more frequent and extensive, refugee mass-migration isn't occurring because some people felt like a walk, and plastic is a problem."

Over-population: well that's a value judgement. What is the 'correct' population. And I always point out that a partial solution is in your hands. Just show some commitment!

food shortage exists in portions of the planet: yes, because of political issues - war etc - not because we can't grow enough food. In fact we have more calories available per capita than at any time in history.

weather extremes are becoming more frequent and extensive: that's rubbish. Even the IPCC agrees that there's no evidence for these claims.

refugee mass-migration isn't occurring because some people felt like a walk: Its occurring because life is sweet in the west and people want a taste of that. But if the so-called solutions to AGW are implemented then life won't be so sweet.

plastic is a problem: only in the developing third world.

"Glaciers don't melt or recede because of some heat-source below the Arctic ice-cap (or because of an occasional solar flare),"

No they recede because of warming. In fact lots are receding to the levels they were around 1000 yrs ago during the Medieval Warm Period. I wonder what caused that warming?

You see, the question isn't whether or not its warming (it is) but the cause and the level of future warming. The world has been warmer than now for 3000 of the last 12000 yrs and we and the GBR and wild-life and crops and and and all did just fine in those periods. In those days they just enjoyed the warmer more benign climate. They had more pressing things to worry about.

nicknamenick - AKA Court Jester Quote "Your whole topic is an error. "How could Climate Scientists have arrived at the conclusions they did when this important factor was unknown to them. "

Permanent radioactivity is irrelevant to recent increased melting.

Looks like you are wrong.
First In above comments you defend what you say is an flawed topic, but don't mention you think it is flawed.

Second How could my topic be wrong if it is not a topic but a question? Forgot to add the question mark to the end, maybe in your haste to stick up for your mate Toni you missed the first word "How" at the beginning.

Toni Lavis Wrote"the world does not revolve around you or your half-baked ideas"

I replied - Never said it did.

Toni Lavis You replied with this blatant lie Quote "Never said you said it did. But you sure act like you think it does."

IF YOU NEVER SAID IT DID, how do you explain the following sentence from you?

"I recommend you get over yourself, because the world does not revolve around you or your half-baked ideas."
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 30 November 2018 7:51:11 PM

Toni Lavis Quote "Things that are demonstrably false don't magically become true if they go unchallenged in the Daily Mail for a fortnight."

** They would be challenged by the other MSM and refugee advocates. **

Bit long winded but to quote you again "n exactly the same way, when President Whatshisface is quoted as saying that Nauru is giving out free holidays, houses, jobs and healthcare, it's obviously ridiculous. As has already been pointed out to you, the economy of Nauru is well and truly stuffed. Can't get blood out of a stone, Phil. They haven't got the money for free housing and healthcare. They haven't got jobs to give. And as for free overseas holidays... I mean really, how are we supposed to take that one seriously? Do any well developed countries with strong economies that take in refugees free overseas holidays such as Australia, Canada, Germany etc. give them free overseas holidays? Of course they don't. It's a laughable idea.

So on the face of it, President Whatshisface's claims seem quite implausible and rather extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and since I've seen no proof - not even the ordinary kind - to support these claims, I see no reason to believe them."

** You based your argument on this **
I find that hard to believe. Nauru is an economic basket case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru#Economy

Unemployment at 90% and they're giving free housing and jobs to refugees? Pull the other one, President Waqa, it plays Jingle Bells.

** You failed to take into account everything Nauru gives them and does for them Australia pays for. **

** Refugees are such an emotive topic I guarantee it would have quickly been called out in the media, or by the refugee advocates. if it was false **

Quote "Jesus, I don't have time to point out every stupid comment you make, I'd never get aught else done."

You preface that with "Jesus" looks like you are getting frustrated.

I challenge the little Troll to point, out my "stupid comments" numerically your will outnumber any I make.

mhaze To add to what you wrote there is one very important question no scientists have been able to answer that is.

What should the global average temperature be?

mhaze
It was warmer 5000 years ago by about .4degree over 2 centuries ago. Now it is about .7 warmer than 2 centuries ago. "Unprecedented" as they say in Qld. There are cycles in temperature but the extreme rise matches modern industrial pollution. The rate of rise seems to be the problem.
Philip S
The article is not flawed. It corroborates AGW but you can't comprehend English. Your opening sentence assumes their conclusion is wrong , as written in your title: "Climate scientists calculations must be wrong".
Can you understand your own words?

WARNING, after killing yet another goat,its entrails lied, they said man has made global warming, we roasted it
Turned out we should have used wood, had the taste of coal in our mouths for hours

nicknamenick Quote "The article is not flawed. It corroborates AGW but you can't comprehend English."

It is you who are wrong and can't comprehend.

I agree the article is correct and has an effect on the climate.

Climate scientists made calculations, for argument sake I will say the results were correct.

This new source of melting ice just discovered was not known when the original calculations were made, now it is known it therefore make the original calculations wrong.

I further suggested there may be other factors which have not been considered.

nicknamenick aka Court Jester, you are starting to post more sensible comments lately are you back on your medication?

Belly Quote "WARNING, after killing yet another goat,its entrails lied, they said man has made global warming, we roasted it
Turned out we should have used wood, had the taste of coal in our mouths for hours"

NNN is starting to post more sensible comments you on the other hand are just plain stupid with what you post on this thread if you want to ruin one go do it to something you started.

"The rate of rise seems to be the problem."

The rate of the rise is CLAIMED to be problem. In fact our data for these earlier periods isn't precise enough to narrow changes down to a singe century.

In the Marcott paper of 2013 which found the data that it was warmer than now for a lot of the last 12000 yrs they admitted that the precision of the data was at best 120 yrs for the recent past and 300 yrs for earlier times. They admitted that assertions that the recent rise is unprecedented can't be supported by the data.

Its merely something that is asserted to hide the fact that current temperatures aren't exceptional.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what they mean by Govt should "do something" about climate change.
Thoese morons who hijacked the kids for a march in Melbourne also asked that "something" be done.
I'm utterly baffled what this "something" is in plain English !
Could those science promoters please enighten us on "something" ?

//IF YOU NEVER SAID IT DID, how do you explain the following sentence from you?

"I recommend you get over yourself, because the world does not revolve around you or your half-baked ideas."//

I said it because you act like the world revolves around you or your half-baked ideas. Jesus Phil, it's not rocket science.

//You failed to take into account everything Nauru gives them and does for them Australia pays for.//

Australia isn't paying for free houses or overseas holidays either, Phil. And there are still no jobs on Nauru to give them. That's another extraordinary claim with zero supporting proof, and therefore one which doesn't warrant any serious degree of consideration.

//I challenge the little Troll to point, out my "stupid comments" numerically//

Okay: as a fraction of the total number of comments you have made, the number of stupid comments is 1.

//Okay: as a fraction of the total number of comments you have made, the number of stupid comments is 1.//

Sorry, that was poorly worded. Allow me to express it slightly differently: 100%.

Philip S
Today we have some new words.
They are "radioactivity", that's a big word.
"constant"
"beneath"
"irrelevant"
and finally
"wrong".
You friend Mr Google can tell you what each word means.

Anyone know yet what the Left's favourite word "something" means ?

Rather than wasting time replying to a troll I have just coded a Toni Lavis filter for firefox v63.0.3.

Very easy to code, when a page loads that contains the following text - Toni Lavis followed by a year 2018 then date - then the code for the user id which for Toni Lavis is ( "user.asp?id=68799" )

<div class="comment-post-details"> delineating code followed by Posted by <b>Toni Lavis</b>, Saturday, 1 December 2018 1:44:12 PM</div> the date has to be replaced with wildcard to represent any date preceded by 2018 change to 2019 for next year.

Any text above and below the previous post is not displayed still has the space where the text was but without the troll comments.

nicknamenick You have nothing constructive so reply like a child.

Are you off your medication again

//I'm utterly baffled what this "something" is in plain English !//

Sorry, missed your post before.

'Something', in this context, means enacting policies to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2.

Such policies are possible; many governments, the world over, have found the right combination of carrot and stick to successfully regulate various chemical substances, from heavy metals to reagents for drug synthesis to CFC's. It's not impossible, or even implausible.

//Rather than wasting time replying to a troll I have just coded a Toni Lavis filter//

Well that rather seems to defeat the purpose of a discussion forum... why not just build an echoic chamber and sit in that all day?

Toni lavis,
Do you actually believe we can prevent climate change ? Would it not be stifling evolution ?

//Do you actually believe we can prevent climate change ?//

Prevent? No.

But I think we can lessen its extent by restricting greenhouse gas emissions.

//Would it not be stifling evolution ?//

No, evolution happens anyway.

However , the planet has the right to evolve without being dictated by leftie non-smoking tree-huggers. Why can't the Earth be free to heat like any other red dwarf , become a ball of gas and exercise the rights to self-destruct? Otherwise it's a long hard winter of same old shrinking and slowing rotation which is not on.

Tree hungers around here smoke NNN the vegetation is grown for it
Bit confused about that rotation thing, have it on good information climate change deniers say the earth is flat, will it still rotate

What ? No you're thinking of political spin. The ice has cracks which fuels street violence and hot air. All cigarette packets carry health warming.

No, evolution happens anyway.
Toni Lavis,
So, what exactly is it then that the Lefties want the govt to do about climate change ?
Create a designer Evolution that suits Academia's whims ?

Venus is hotter and has acid and heavy metal . Classical music will not survive in Darwin , whether in vinyl or CD spin-offs.

//Toni Lavis,
So, what exactly is it then that the Lefties want the govt to do about climate change ?//

See my response to exactly the same question from yesterday:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8543#271425

//Create a designer Evolution//

Sorry, I don't have the faintest clue what you're trying to get that there, and I'm not sure you do either. What is it that you imagine evolution has to do with this?

Earthstyle Landscapes: Home
earthstylelandscapes.com.au
Over the past decade the Earthstyle team has been converting landscaping dreams into realities for it's clients in Melbourne.

DNA Landscapes – Residential & Commercial – Complete ...
dnalandscapesinc.com
WE KEEP YOU AHEAD OF THE WEATHER.

Earth DNA is genetically spliced, tweaked and evolved for natural industrial smoke. Avoid forest litter and unburnt coal , the future is emphysema .

What is it that you imagine evolution has to do with this?
Toni Lavis,
The Leftists are incessantly harping on about Govt should do "something" about climate change. Even the school teachers in Melbourne have pulled one of the most irresponsible stunts an educator can pull by demanding the Morrison Govt do "something" about climate change.
This is an example of the evolution of stupidy via university indoctrination.

//Even the school teachers in Melbourne have pulled one of the most irresponsible stunts an educator can pull by demanding the Morrison Govt do "something" about climate change.//

What's so irresponsible about expressing one's concerns to the Government? Lot's of people do it; it's somewhat essential for the functioning of a representative democracy.

Toni Lavis,
No good pretending you don't know what I mean, couldn't you at least try & explain what this or any Govt could do to about climate change ? Oh, hang-on, didn't you just say earlier there's nothing that can be done ? So, what on Earth will expressing impressionable students' concers do ?

//couldn't you at least try & explain what this or any Govt could do to about climate change ?//

Well, they do say third time is the charm. Let's see if he bothers to read it this time:

They can enact policies to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2.

//Oh, hang-on, didn't you just say earlier there's nothing that can be done ?//

No, I definitely didn't. I said that climate change can't be prevented; some warming has already occurred and further warming is inevitable. But its severity can be reduced by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing the severity of warming isn't doing nothing.

"Evolution of stupidity" takes much effort by Canberra's policy of policing school education and it has no time for stopping the coal boats. Stupid jobs and growth need right people doing something. 66% of East Asians contain the Neanderthal skin gene, while 70% of Europeans possess the Neanderthal gene which affects skin colour. Putin is both and has the subs and sub-human instincts to torpedo the coal stupid boats.
This answers individual , evolves logically and stops the same question.

Want to HIGHLIGHT calls for action on climate change are coming from within the LNP
Too more voters want action than do not
Unfortunate truths remain true

Belly - Gets worse

Scott Morrison signs G20 Communique - Paris Climate Accord is "irreversible"

Here's what Australia signed up to:

20. Signatories to the Paris Agreement, who have also joined the Hamburg Action Plan, reaffirm that the Paris Agreement is irreversible and commit to its full implementation, reflecting common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances. We will continue to tackle climate change, while promoting sustainable development and economic growth.

And here's what President Trump's doing.

21. The United States reiterates its decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and affirms its strong commitment to economic growth and energy access and security, utilizing all energy sources and technologies, while protecting the environment.

The words have as much clarity as Philip S on a good day. "in light of different national circumstances. We will continue to tackle climate change and economic growth." "The United States while protecting the environment."

Scot and Donald will put out the trash cans on the sidewalk Monday thru Sunday .

nicknamenick Quote "The words have as much clarity as Philip S on a good day." Coming from the court jester aka the king of gibberish which only village idiots emulate that is high praise.

Taking into account I consider every day a good day.

Such a mental condition about 'good days' is a worry .
"Gets worse" . How do these weasel legalese pleas release you?

nicknamenick Are you just plain stupid or trying to be a troll.

To quote you "The words have as much clarity as Philip S on a good day."

The words you refer to were my post.
Scott Morrison signs G20 Communique - Paris Climate Accord is "irreversible"

Here's what Australia signed up to:

20. Signatories to the Paris Agreement, who have also joined the Hamburg Action Plan, reaffirm that the Paris Agreement is irreversible and commit to its full implementation, reflecting common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances. We will continue to tackle climate change, while promoting sustainable development and economic growth.

And here's what President Trump's doing.

21. The United States reiterates its decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and affirms its strong commitment to economic growth and energy access and security, utilizing all energy sources and technologies, while protecting the environment.

ANYONE with half a brain can see the numbers 20. and 21. even the heading.
Scott Morrison signs G20 Communique - Paris Climate Accord is "irreversible"

It would be obvious to anyone except someone trolling that these were copy and pasted words from an article, not my words, try to grow up

Well I'm pleased you can do copy /paste and write your summary : "gets worse".
The tricky part is trying to express what gets worse.
hmmm?

Hi mhaze,
Don't know if I can answer your questions adequately - let alone to your satisfaction.
Optimal world human population - in my assessment, 4 billion. Why? Well, is more always better? I think not.
Our Mother Earth is exhibiting significant signs of distress - with accelerating species extinction, whales 'beaching' themselves (with no explanation from biological scientists), Beijing citizens suffocating with increasing frequency due to industrial air pollution, rivers and streams dying from toxic effluents from mining and industry (and from 'products' of excessive human population), unexplained 'mass' fish deaths, and plastics creating an oceanic pollution disaster.
We are such a 'clever' species, but can't even get out of our own way. 7.7 billion, and counting. When is enough, enough?

Posted by Philip S, 2 December 2018 8:51:40 PM (re G20):
"And here's what President Trump's doing.
21. The United States reiterates its decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and affirms its strong commitment to economic growth and energy access and security, utilizing all energy sources and technologies, while protecting the environment."

Such a commitment to environmental 'husbandry' is staggering!

As for the latest exit from 'snowball earth' approx 17,700 years ago - we would certainly have to expect things to warm up after that, and for there to be subsequent climatic 'cycles' - including from periodic volcanic eruptions billowing CO2 - but fossil fuel combustion on a mass scale is surely an added and accelerating burden on nature's capacity to absorb such abuse, as evidenced, I repeat 'evidenced', by glacial and ice-cap shrinkage.
Not a 'proof' of 'detrimental' global temperature increase - or of anthropogenic climate change? Maybe not. But, a warning?
My contention is: 'responsible action' could only be beneficial - as long as measures employed don't exacerbate the current situation - and could well provide significant alleviation to severely stressed human and environmental global circumstances.
For some: If there is a God, and He/She advised 'Go forth and multiply', I suspect the hand-wringing would be causing blisters, and head-shaking at the destruction of 'Eden' causing a full-on migraine.

So, in not so much academic jargon what does the Parirs Climate Accord stipulate ?

The Accord is for Philip S heat from Radioactivity . " a new technology framework and an enhanced capacity building framework will be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries and the most vulnerable countries," ( such as Antarctica which supplies ice to pubs and Sydney Fish Market). French nuclear processors will remove the radioactive rock from 3kms down and cool the earth by 4.3 degrees allowing Ardani coal to fire up.

Uranium is made from uranium . France invented it. Uranium was found to be radioactive by French physicist Henri Becquerel in 1896 . Antarctica was cold in 1896. France switched on Antarctica during its nuclear weapons testing which destroyed AGW.
They shrugged their shoulders saying "that's war".

Say, mhaze, (et al),

Did you catch Sir David Attenborough's assessment that "climate change is the world's greatest threat in millennia."?

He gets my vote. But no crowing, the games afoot, and question is "Where do we go from here"?
My preference is to enhance agricultural/horticultural/forestry development world-wide (ie maximised natural photosynthesis absorption processes) - including supporting struggling developing agronomist peoples and cultures, so as to reverse global deforestation and land degradation (particularly of major remaining forest habitats - Amazon, Borneo, Tasmania, West Aussie, Indonesia, Madagascar, Galapagos, India, Asia, Africa, America, Russia, Balkans ....).
Certainly we can embrace solar and hydro with gusto - and inland South Aussie is crying out for a super solar-concentrator facility (taking pumped sea water from the coast to distill or micro-sieve to provide floods of fresh water for irrigation, and to produce bulks of electricity by supporting steam generators.
Could solve SA's fresh drinking water and electricity demand problems for ... a millennium?
Go to it, Oz! We have a wide open country, and with confidence and vision we can help to save forests around the world and support developing nations to realize their potentials while still preserving and rehabilitating their unique environmental heritage - before it's all too late.

Saltptre,
In Australia the Bradfield scheme would ease the impact of climate change to a dgree or two but the Greens are against it because the believe opposing everything that enhances nature is to be opposed for opposing's sake. Sense does not play part in their wharped mentality.

Sir David [sorry about the spelling] Attenborough a man that is a living legend
Warns us from Poland are we listening
NO some of us never will
I will come at it from the other end, tell me why he me and so very many have been conned?
Why we believe in man made climate change, even think non believers without knowing it, are in the interests of fossil fuel owners,
Why do we silly people that we are believe in science not the junk conspiracies we are told are about?

'Sir David [sorry about the spelling] Attenborough a man that is a living legend'

you mean the god denier who constantly sprouts the evolution lie as if that what makes something true. Yep the gullible will carry on with nonsense no matter how irrational.

Belly,
Well, yeah it's alright to say anything if you're not expected to come up with a slution.
The the GBR for example, some new coral groth is evident on the reefs but stop the cause of the destruction which is pollution swirled around with the ocean currents, a lot of the industries which are there to satisfy the hunger of the consumers, need to be seriously re-modelled.
Are those who demand these commodities going to take the first step ?
I bet Sir David's carbon footprint from all his travel & the documentary filming is massive in comparison to the average consumer.

runner,
Why do think God made humans so fertile when on the other hand he created a planet that can't accommodate them all ?

runner thank you, your post advocating for a fantasy, a God that never existed, proves not every thing you say should be considered informed comment
indy ok old mate know its the best you can do
We all know do we even in the National and Liberals large numbers believe in climate change?

runner,
Why do think God made humans so fertile when on the other hand he created a planet that can't accommodate them all ?'


Why Individual do you repeat ridiculous assertions. This planet has an abundance of food, clothing and resources. It's because of selfishness, laziness, greed and other sin that sees so many missing out that people often repeat such falsehoods.. If some of the gw high priest and vatican released a bit more of their fortunes many more would be better off. If Soros used his billions to feed and create job opportunties instead of pooping on everyone who made him rich millions would be pulled from poverty overnight. Many African nations void of corrupt leaders would be very prosperous and as for the Saudis!

runner,
Sorry you feel forced to pretend to misunderstand. I'll again ask you a ridiculous assertion, how many humans do you thinks God designed the Earth for ?
I wholly agree with you re all the greed but greed aside are humans really deliberately created to become so numerous ? Imagine if as you said all the money of those wealthies were used to feed those who are too lazy to work but breed like rabits, were to populate the planet. Do you think they have a moral right to do that ? Do you think God deliberately created the lazy in the same way he created the unfortunate & the greedy ? What would have been the reason or logic of that ? Do you think he created climate change too ? Many religious don't accept evolution but I think God may have create evolution to sort out the greedy, the lazy & the rabbit-like.

'Sorry you feel forced to pretend to misunderstand. I'll again ask you a ridiculous assertion, how many humans do you thinks God designed the Earth for ?'

You are wrong in assuming I feel forced to pretend to misunderstood. I took your assertion that the earth was overpopulated and did not have enough space or resources as standard humanist dogma with no rational basis.

Laziness, corruption and greed are part of the adamic nature all have received since Adam.

As far as God creating climate change the bible states that he put the seasons into place. The climate has always changed from day to day and still does. If man made gw was real we would not have had numerous deceitful and fudged figures from the IPCC and other scammers making billions from the public. We also would not have lies from 'scientist' sprouting off what the temperature and climate was 80000 years ago and beyond. I have visited people win pyscho wards that would not sprout such nonsense.

I have no idea what was in the mind of God when creating the world as to how many human being would inhabit the earth. What I do know is we are nowhere near capacity. Man's sin will ensure multitudes of humans will be wiped out before the 'were full' sign goes up. Obviously the murderers like HItler who based his world view on Darwinism think that somehow they will be the ones spared. These 'elite' who think they are smart are dumb enough to think they will avoid judgement from their Creator.

Whilst Climate Change is real, the pretence of the carbon footprint excessors is so fake it borders on sickening.
These billionaires with the help of the unthinking Left's consumers & politicians have no idea how to even start thinking about how to alleviate Climate Change. They conveniently smoke-screen their inability by using phrases like "Govt should do something about climate change."
If they were genuine they'd focus on Carbon footprint of commodities of convenience.
A Carbon levy to be used to pay unemployed young people to perform a National Service which focusses on cleaning up pollution & weeds. Under no circumstances should this funding be administered by the States. It has to be federal to prevent the rorts/wastage that are going on presently.
Also, get the irrigation of the interior of Australia off the ground. Other Nations would copy such a system in time at all.
This is a chance for Australia to set an example.

(The water in Artesian basin is there now , thanks to Labor and Attenborough . However , it's not true-blue Liberal water , heated by Philip S hot-rocks and calculated to grow salt soil faster than Antarctica melts).

runner If the USA and other countries put the money they spend on wars, trillions of dollars into other things we probably would have no problems.

Except for an idiot called nicknamenick aka the court jester, grow up.

Climate scientists calculations must be wrong.
Uranium is mined in Australia. There must be no AGW . Philip S has calculated that. Philip like scinece.

My aimless wandering in today,s news papers found me reading the God letter
Albert Einstein wrote it
We can forget anything he wrote because we in this thread do not believe in science do we
Also found that few days sold UN report on climate change, ignore them they lie,or do they
Delving deep into the two fighting cats Liberal show, I found those blessed trouble makers in that party calling themselves moderates, are calling for action on climate change
All the above are time wasting fools if they want the truth ask runner

Uranium causes bushfires.

The climate crooks and raving lunatics are out in force again, thanks to the G20. Lots of media exposure for the senile waffle of David Attenborough.

quite ironic that every scientist who has known that the big bang and evolution is absolute garbage remained silent for exactly the reasons those who know the gw alarmist religion is garbage remain silent. Consensus junk science wins over observation, testing and facts. No funding or money in the truth while the likes of Attenborough make heaps from deceit.

Needed that!not had the best of days but those two posts remind me the deniers are not so very bright

thanks to Labor and Attenborough
nicknamenick,
Please explain ?

(The water in Artesian basin is there now , thanks to Labor and Attenborough . However , it's not true-blue Liberal water , heated by Philip S hot-rocks and calculated to grow salt soil faster than Antarctica melts).

Leftie green rubbish science is not as good as right Libs science. So they must each control their own world. If Greens are to blame for all the bad stuff at least there's some credit for filling the artesian water.

nicknamenick It is evident by your continual reference to my name and parts of my posts, you have an unhealthy obsession bordering on hero worship.

Your obsession will come to nothing but heartbreak as you will notice I continually ridicule your comments.

If I did not know better I could come to the conclusion you were stalking me.

( hey Phil baby , this is your thread. You wrote it. Discovering uranium cancels AGW . insane .)

nicknamenick Nice try to deflect my comment but an epic fail as anyone reading other threads can clearly see you make lots of references to me and parts of my posts.

Just take your medication and stop your fixation with me.

( gasp) you've been continually insulting me, trawling through my posts to paste and count them and now start snivelling that I'm referring to you. I use your correct forum-name and reply to your posts , not ad hominem. You can explain your idea rationally , admit an error or else be man enough to receive relevant debate . I suspect none of these ..?

nicknamenick,
Is that what you call an explanation ?
How did Labor refill the Artesian Basin ?

individual,

I wish you well and hope you enjoy your time in this Forum.

nicknamenick.

I doubt if anyone could read the following comments by you on this thread and think you were not on drugs or off your medication.

Quotes on this thread by nicknamenick
"Don't follow the graphs . Buy Bitcoin .And overcoats."

"you naughty man , Denial is complicity. You deny that radioactivity melts icewater under Antarctica."

"Warren Buffet learnt about weather from the newspapers he sold as a kid and became a scientist. Bachelor of Science in Business Administration. He tried selling the Russian Arctic to the Soviet Union but they said it was over-heated."

"My monarchist parents sent me to a school which told HRH Prince Robert Menzies that the school votes Liberal. Hopefully the kids today will march in 3 columns down the main street carrying broom-sticks on their shoulders, "Shoot Shortern"."

"Unless Putin dumped nuclear waste to flood Ukraine and Florida."

""climate change which is an evolutionary phenomenon."
Could be , dinosaurs gave way to warm-blooded mammoths . Don't know how they got mammoths eating flowers in the snow but that's evolution for you. Ice is so yesterday."

"Philip S
Today we have some new words.
They are "radioactivity", that's a big word.
"constant"
"beneath"
"irrelevant"
and finally
"wrong".
You friend Mr Google can tell you what each word means."

"However , the planet has the right to evolve without being dictated by leftie non-smoking tree-huggers. Why can't the Earth be free to heat like any other red dwarf , become a ball of gas and exercise the rights to self-destruct? Otherwise it's a long hard winter of same old shrinking and slowing rotation which is not on."

"What ? No you're thinking of political spin. The ice has cracks which fuels street violence and hot air. All cigarette packets carry health warming."

"Venus is hotter and has acid and heavy metal . Classical music will not survive in Darwin , whether in vinyl or CD spin-offs."

"Earth DNA is genetically spliced, tweaked and evolved for natural industrial smoke. Avoid forest litter and unburnt coal , the future is emphysema ."

"Evolution of stupidity" takes much effort by Canberra's policy of policing school education and it has no time for stopping the coal boats. Stupid jobs and growth need right people doing something. 66% of East Asians contain the Neanderthal skin gene, while 70% of Europeans possess the Neanderthal gene which affects skin colour. Putin is both and has the subs and sub-human instincts to torpedo the coal stupid boats.
This answers individual , evolves logically and stops the same question."

"Scot and Donald will put out the trash cans on the sidewalk Monday thru Sunday ."

"The Accord is for Philip S heat from Radioactivity . " a new technology framework and an enhanced capacity building framework will be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries and the most vulnerable countries," ( such as Antarctica which supplies ice to pubs and Sydney Fish Market). French nuclear processors will remove the radioactive rock from 3kms down and cool the earth by 4.3 degrees allowing Ardani coal to fire up."

"Uranium is made from uranium . France invented it. Uranium was found to be radioactive by French physicist Henri Becquerel in 1896 . Antarctica was cold in 1896. France switched on Antarctica during its nuclear weapons testing which destroyed AGW.
They shrugged their shoulders saying "that's war"."

"(The water in Artesian basin is there now , thanks to Labor and Attenborough . However , it's not true-blue Liberal water , heated by Philip S hot-rocks and calculated to grow salt soil faster than Antarctica melts)."

"Uranium is mined in Australia. There must be no AGW . Philip S has calculated that. Philip like scinece."

"Uranium causes bushfires."

My science just discovered that the Dinosaurs became extinct from the global warming caused by the kilns used by the Egyptians for drying the bricks for the pyramids.

//My science just discovered that the Dinosaurs became extinct from the global warming caused by the kilns used by the Egyptians for drying the bricks for the pyramids.//

The pyramids are made from stone.

Tony Lavis do not be cruel indy needs to think like that

Toni Lavis & Belly,
Gawd ! Was your sense of humour buried under those rocks ?

Individual,

We always enjoy interacting with you and other
deniers. Much as we enjoy playing peak-a-boo with
a baby, or perhaps teasing a cat with a laser pointer.

Undy please consider, in about twenty years clean energy will be the standard
Climate denying by then no longer seen
IF we ever reach peak oil, it is not short now, just price manipulation at work
New fuel with be every day
Humor is good but consider the insults used against those of us who hold views different to yours

A friend has told me that his other friend in Bunbury, WA, has reported that the sea-level around Fremantle has risen by three or four inches.

My friend asked him how much it had risen at Bunbury. "Well, not at all," he replied.

"What's the main water source for Perth?" my friend asked. "Ground water," his friend replied.

"So Perth is subsiding as water is taken out of the ground under it ?" my friend asked, all innocent.

Denier bastard.

How can we stamp out this blatant ignoring of catastrophic realities ? That there is currently too much CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere for the natural vegetation to absorb?

Or maybe we can somehow increase the amount of natural vegetation to absorb CO2 ? Like more crops, orchards, cotton fields, plantations ? If there is some connection between CO2 and absorption by plant life, then is it possible to increase the amount of plant life, to match the amount of CO2 being produced ? Remember when they called global warming "the greenhouse effect" ?

Plants love CO2. The more CO2, the more efficiently plants take up water as well.

So here's a simple formula:

Nuclear plants producing energy, for desalination plants, for vast Poly-pipe drip-system irrigation schemes across (for a start) northern Australia, raising useful timber trees, fruit trees, sandalwood, mangoes and avocados, etc. by the millions, eventually billions. Aboriginal people in remote communities are crying out for huge economic schemes to get involved with, for life, they're sick of welfare. Ten thousand could be trained up, in nursery management, hydro-engineering, plant biology, agri-business, and down the track: saw-milling, furniture-making, re-planting. A massive, never-ending mega-enterprise, employing people forever.

And CO2 controlled.

What's not to like ?

Joe

Belly- The biggest issue with renewables is that you can't throttle it in the same way as other fuel based systems and the cost of the battery bank makes it too expensive. Also in vehicles there are other issues- lifetime of batteries 5-20 years dependent on climate above 25 degrees. Power source in vehicles needs to be light weight, high power density, cheap, environmentally friendly, safe.

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-life-lithium-ion-batteries-electric.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle

Sadly I wrote a solid article but proceeded to delete it when I closed the tab.

Basically you need someone knowledgeable about engineering to understand. If you are serious about using renewables talk with engineers and read about different vehicles such as trains, cars, and power stations.

//Or maybe we can somehow increase the amount of natural vegetation to absorb CO2 ? Like more crops, orchards, cotton fields, plantations ? If there is some connection between CO2 and absorption by plant life, then is it possible to increase the amount of plant life, to match the amount of CO2 being produced ?//

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: vegetation absorbs CO2, more vegetation absorbs more CO2. But in order to have enough vegetation to absorb CO2 at a rate equal or in excess of the rate at which we produce it burning fossil fuels, we would need more vegetation than there is land area to put it on. That's even if you include all the desert bits (including Antarctica) and the bits that humans and their agriculture are currently occupying. We could fill in the Pacific Ocean (not practically, but hypothetically) with rainforest, and we still wouldn't have enough vegetation to match the rate of CO2 production. It just can't be done, mate: to match the current rate of CO2 production, we'd need another few planet's worth of vegetation. The only way we could ever hope to match the rate of CO2 production with extra CO2 absorption from plants is by drastically reducing the level of CO2 production. Trying to do it the other way just ain't possible.

And the level of vegetation on the planet is decreasing steadily. It's sad, as Ogden Nash so beautifully put it, 'I think that I shall never see, a billboard lovely as a tree'. But economic growth and deforestation seem to be strongly correlated, and do we really want to deny economic growth to developing countries just to keep them looking like the forest moon of Endor?

//Nuclear plants producing energy, for desalination plants, for vast Poly-pipe drip-system irrigation schemes across (for a start) northern Australia, raising useful timber trees, fruit trees, sandalwood, mangoes and avocados, etc. by the millions, eventually billions. Aboriginal people in remote communities are crying out for huge economic schemes to get involved with, for life, they're sick of welfare. Ten thousand could be trained up, in nursery management, hydro-engineering, plant biology, agri-business, and down the track: saw-milling, furniture-making, re-planting. A massive, never-ending mega-enterprise, employing people forever.//

Sounds fine.

//And CO2 controlled.//

Yeah, if we switch the grid over to nuclear, only use electric vehicles (not sure how that's going to work for planes, but anyway) and eat more roos instead of methane producing ruminants, the trees we already have will probably be sufficient to control our CO2... the problem is at the production end; we can only rely so far on natural processes to deal with absorption. Beyond that, we'll have to find a technological solution to solve absorption.

But still, plant more trees. They're just nice have to around.

The simplest & most economic solution to combat the decline of the environment would be for people to curb their excesses.
Curb breeding, curb immigration, curb profiteering, curb polluting frivolous industry, curb emission of every kind and, top of the list, curb greed.
This could be achieved by making nations religion-free. Focus on eliminating superstition.
In a word focus on bringing humans to their senses. The present education systems are working against humanity, not for it. The largely academic & religious control freaks have proven their inability to lead.

Individual nice thoughts but unlikely, greed over rules such things
A time will come that forces actions we now see stalled
Reference to Nuclear power always brings out people who see only its failures
In fact it has far more success than fails
Such plants, about three, on the east coast of this country would more than cover any omissions cuts required
Too power industries that can not start up here because of power prices

Hi Toni,

In my old age, I easily get confused. You suggest that no amount of tree-planting etc. will soak up the CO2 already in the atmosphere- then you suggest that the trees we already have " ... will probably be sufficient to control our CO2 ... " It's mid-afternoon on a Saturday, so which is it at the moment ?

Just to be on the safe side - since I hate CO2 passionately, it's a poison, a blight, it should never have been invented - what if - as well as sitting back, content with the trees we already have - we put a few more in the ground, perhaps a few billion, just in case ? And kept a manageable re-forestation program in place indefinitely ? Apart from soaking up all Indigenous unemployment forever, and eventually forming a valuable timber-export industry, semi-tropical fruit, etc., it may have some effect on CO2 levels ?

Decrepit I may be, and rapidly getting decrepiter, but I'm still a searcher after truth, Aidan. Please help me.

Joe

//You suggest that no amount of tree-planting etc. will soak up the CO2 already in the atmosphere//

No, that's not what I said. I said that we don't, and can't, have enough trees to match the current rate of CO2 production.

In order to start soaking up the CO2 that is already there, it is a mathematical necessity that the level of absorption be greater than the level of production. You get that why has to be the case, right? Please tell me if you don't really understand this point, as I feel it may be where our discussions on this subject break down.

//then you suggest that the trees we already have " ... will probably be sufficient to control our CO2 ... "//

Yes, with the caveat that this would be possible, IF AND ONLY IF, we were to drastically reduce our level of CO2 production. This goes back to the arithmetic of sources vs. sinks.

//what if - as well as sitting back, content with the trees we already have - we put a few more in the ground, perhaps a few billion, just in case ?//

As I said before, sounds fine. Knock yourself out, mate. Get out there and plant those trees, I'm not going to stop you. I like trees, I just don't believe they have the superpowers that you seem to ascribe to them.

//And kept a manageable re-forestation program in place indefinitely ? Apart from soaking up all Indigenous unemployment forever, and eventually forming a valuable timber-export industry, semi-tropical fruit, etc., it may have some effect on CO2 levels ?//

Yes, Joey Mangoseed, every last little blade of grass has some effect on CO2 levels. But so does every last little gram of coal burnt. And the coal wins by a vast margin.

Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 8 December 2018 2:42:55 PM
You suggest that no amount of tree-planting etc. will soak up the CO2 already in the atmosphere

Answer- It's not just the CO2 already there but the CO2 being produced "year on year". There are too many people on Earth and it will continue to grow until 2200 and will plateau at about 12 Billion- we'll be above 10 Billion by the end of 2100. In 2003 half India's (Pyramid shaped) population was under the age of 15. India currently produces 4 children per woman so the population already at about 1.3 billion looks like it will reach 2 billion in less than 30 years assuming current indicators. Third world countries I understand tend to produce more CO2 per capita than First World countries.

China's (hour glass shaped) population will decrease in the next 30 years due to their one child policy. India needs to adopt a one child policy or suffer huge increases in population density and threaten the bordering countries.

It's going to be difficult to reduce Australia's greenhouse gases while our population is increasing.

CM China no longer has a one child policy
However it and other nearby countries are about to suffer because of that policy
Subcontinent preference for sons leave a massive shortage of brides
2200 if we make it, will see us using new fuels some we as yet never dreamed of

Posted by Belly, Saturday, 8 December 2018 6:27:00 PM
However it and other nearby countries are about to suffer because of that policy. Subcontinent preference for sons leave a massive shortage of brides.

Answer 1- Yes- I agree some elements could have been perhaps managed better- but action is better than inaction. There will be some lonely people- but its better than starving people- if they had have done something earlier the impact would have been less. It will still cause the intended consequence of a reduction of population. I'm proud of China for having the courage to fix their own problems- rather than letting their problems become the worlds problems. Like you said there will be some impact on the surrounding countries but an order of magnitude less than without the policy. There will be a lot of happy men with young wives in sixteen years time.

Posted by Belly, Saturday, 8 December 2018 6:27:00 PM
2200 if we make it, will see us using new fuels some we as yet never dreamed of.

Answer 2- Most of the growth will happen in the next 80 years till 2100 if the trend continues. If we look back 80 years it will give us an idea of the changes we will be likely to see in the next 80 years.
Patrick Deneen believes that the reason we are in the position we are now vs environmental problems is because of liberalism and our free use and desire to control nature- freedom to have children- free business- free consumerism- free use of land- a limitless bounty. Deneen believes that changes to the damage done to the environment will only occur with a change in attitude to classical conservatism and responsibility. He says we have taken 500 years to get to this point and so it will take a long time to claw back our desires to more realistic and stable states

CM as in all things the once one child policy, and nearby nations wishing only for boy children brings troubling results
Right now a dreadful trade in sex workers is a blot on the subcontinent
No bride is not just a few men being lonely, in the end we are going to be talking about millions
Then because of those impacts yet another fall,in population numbers should come

Belly- With respect- Australia will likely be in a much worse situation than China in 30 years time.

Funny how climate scientists can predict 10, 20 or more years into the future, climate weather, BUT the meteorologists often can't even get the weather right 1 day in advance.

CM not sure just what you meant by that 30 years quote suspect it is about the high birth rate in our Muslim population
Forgive me for thinking at times of the blind bitter hate for African Americans as seen in the hill billy south
Muslims, are leaving the faith, quietly not saying so just not living in the faith
in 30 years that faith may well be in as much trouble as the Catholic Church is now, struggling for an uncertain survival
In 30 years it is my view climate change, man made, will be execepted and THANKFULLY the part overpopulation plays will be known

//Funny how climate scientists can predict 10, 20 or more years into the future, climate weather//

That's nothing, I can accurately predict what it will be doing 300 years from now.

The summers will be hotter than the winters. You're welcome.

Belly Quote "In 30 years it is my view climate change, man made, will be execepted" I assume you meant accepted.

Simple question for you out of 100% how much of the climate change can be attributed to humans?

Yesterday the news told us an earth satellite has left our solar system
Just think how much science went in to that
How many times could it have failed
Now we condemn the science, because we side with a constructed lie aimed at protecting the interests of fossil fuels
How much is man made? how long is a piece of string

Belly I asked you - out of 100% how much of the climate change can be attributed to humans?

You replied "How much is man made? how long is a piece of string"

If the scientists are so adamant it is caused by humans, that simple question should have an answer, it does not so how can you so blindly believe it is true?

Belly Quote "how long is a piece of string" Simple give me the piece of string and I will measure it and tell you the answer.

Here are 3 things that should put even a little doubt into your mind.

1. Out of 100% exactly how much of the climate change can be attributed to humans?

2. What is the optimal average temperature the planet should be?

3. Scientists made all the predictions in the past without knowing there was another cause for the ice melting "a radioactive heat source is slowly melting it from underneath" could there be more things that influence climate change?

PS unlike yourself I am not a scientist
So am forced when asked such a question to find out what they say on the subject
Again, apparently, unlike you I believe in science and what they tell us
For a few minutes think, if another source of power was found over night, say we no longer needed coal, in fact could not sell it
What if its emergence even threatened oil
Is there any chance governments/investors/owners of fossil fuels would try to stop its use
Could they start a campaign to lie about it, brand it fraud, use those who fall for that lie to further protect all the existing big money that could be lost over night

Belly Quote "So am forced when asked such a question to find out what they say on the subject"

All right, so what did you find out from the scientists about my questions, nothing because they don't know the answers especially to the first two questions.

Quote "if another source of power was found over night, say we no longer needed coal, in fact could not sell it
What if its emergence even threatened oil"

Simple first if you check the big oil companies for some time now have been diversifying into other things one of them is carbon capture schemes.

Second the coal industry in 2017 $40.6 Billion exported, it would take time but they would find other uses and find ways to make it more environmentally friendly.

Renewable energy will not be reliable and cheap without the massive subsidies for some time.

Belly- My previous comment wasn't targeted at Muslims specifically but at Australia's population strategy vs China's population strategy.