MHAZE, before you add more red herrings.

You continually crow about some amazing victory over me a few years ago. "Careful there Max. Remember the last time you started down this "do the Math" rubbish. I did the math...and showed you to be an utter nong" http://tinyurl.com/stx7b74
Oh, so you're a climate scientist are you? You've done the math? Please, do tell! Except all you did was bring up the well known outer ranges of extreme possibility in climate sensitivity. You correctly stated the range was "1.5 to 4.5 degrees" per doubling of CO2. Wow, I must be utterly defeated! http://tinyurl.com/ulnfnlh
Yup, the sensitivity is important because the raw physics says the CO2 only warms the planet about 1.2 degrees. The rest comes down to various feedback loops. But while that 1.5 to 4.5 degrees sounds like a HUGE range, what did you purposely omit? Oh yeah, the probability! This isn't an even probability but a bell curve. The studies cluster in the middle which gives a high probability of 3 degrees and only extreme outside odds on anything lower than 2. http://tinyurl.com/jfcm5tv So based on that, Bill McKibben did the math on the highest probability and asked how much carbon we could continue to burn to stop at 2 degrees. Now the IPCC has changed it to 1.5 degrees because the climate seems MORE and MORE sensitive the more we study it.

The journal Nature has said:
"Here we present a new emergent constraint on ECS that yields a central estimate of 2.8 degrees Celsius with 66 per cent confidence limits (equivalent to the IPCC ‘likely’ range) of 2.2–3.4 degrees Celsius. Our approach is to focus on the variability of temperature about long-term historical warming, rather than on the warming trend itself."
January 2018 http://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450

You left with a final unjustified gloat http://tinyurl.com/un62q7o and that was it. The only REAL scientific thing you said was "1.5 to 4.5 degrees". The rest was long-winded waffle and now even Nature has undermined your weird claims.

40 plus in Perth, they tell us the hot air from middle Australia will get as high as the low 50,s this week
That in fact we will probably get the hottest day on record
We break records each year now, maybe month, hottest coldest driest wettest it sure is changing
Three inches of rain in an hour in Queensland last night, record breaking snowfall in America
ITS A PLOT! UN is trying to force a Socialist world on us!
Then again while good for a laugh some of those calling us mad may have a problem

To Max Green.

Thank you for calming down enough to talk about the issues instead of talk about the people disagreeing with your points. This might sound like a tangent but hear me out, it's related.

You've heard of the phrase "preaching to the choir," right? Basically that your trying to convince a group that already agrees with you instead of those that would need to hear it. From what I've seen climate change has reached that kind of dynamic, where those who don't believe in it listen to others who don't accept it, and possibly mock and insult those that do. Whereas the other side is just the same. Those that do believe it's narrative listen to sources that already agree with them and have grown into a very vocal outbursts against those who don't accept climate change theories.

The issue here is for being able to bridge the gap and be able to talk to the other side, instead of only talking to your own side, while harassing the other side or at the very least spreading the distance between the two sides.

My previous point has been that climate science has become unreliable. This is possibly more to do with the media coverage, or it might be with the science itself. At that point the issue becomes the same thing unless you're part of the climate studies and have the background to sift through the good points from the crap points. With means media coverage is important enough to be a concern. And to not make it worse by encouraging the same type of hype that has lead to a distrust in the field. My experience is that there are similar news stories about we have X amount of time before it's too late. Often that narrative story is combined with another told around the same time that we already are too late, or the timeline is much shorter. These are things I've been around to remember by the time we have the same story come back up with the twelve years announcement a year ago.

(Continued)

(Continued)

That said I don't have exact stories because they were likely made 5-10 years ago, and another one 5-10 years before that. However, so we're on the same page about the matter, it's about the global warming narratives, not the global cooling narratives that this sticks out in my memory, and with current news today. We've talked about this issue a bit but your stance has been "prove these stories exist, show where a scientist has taken these stances." I shake my head in wondering if you really don't remember the same things already said before, if you really didn't know, or if this is a debate tactic that if it can't be proven it can't be true.

The unreliability based on predictions is point 1 of unreliability. And before you say it that the predictions have been accurate, this goes to point 2, "which predictions are the accurate ones?" Again perhaps you don't know, don't remember or the third possibility that for arguments sake let's hope is untrue. But the different predictions are from a graph and a narrative that starts as a level increase then spikes upwards exponentially. If you don't know of such a graph, or of those predictions I don't know what to tell you, because that is the heart of climate scare coverage. The issue saying that the small changes now are going to intensify as shown in this predictive model and in your lifetime (20-30 years from now) the results will be flooded coastlines, lack of drinking water, intense tempatures, and probably a few other scary situations.

(Continued)

(Continued)

That's the first predictive model that for whatever reason gets lost after a short time and is replaced with a less memorable and less drastic model that says "look here's all we've said and have ever said about the steady slow increase of temps." The game of lies, misdirection, lack of transparency, and over all con of presenting two ideas. One strongly for a short time and the other quietly for a longer time is a game I have no more patience for. I'll just stand by the issue that this is point 2 of making climate change unreliable. That's before even considering the perspectives that have already concluded the same with either a scientists, or with a conspiracy theorist who points to one world government, destabilizing societies or other far sounding ideas. Without even considering the other perspectives climate change narratives be one unreliable due to their own stories.

Yet these two issues of unreliability are not alone. The third aspect is the growing animosity that is part of climate change narratives. As far back as I can remember it's always been there, talking about big oil not listening and greedy politicians as the reason climate change is not listened to. However I've never seen it this bad until
I've been on the receiving end of it for even suggesting that climate change isn't what it's reported to be. The animosity towards the other side is huge. There is no listening, there are no middle ground points. There is only insult, ignore, or slam character slurs. Look at Mr Opinion's posts to confirm this example. But it's gone on with you and Belly as well for what to do with these darn denialists

All three points of unreliability converge to make the whole issue unreliable. Even to a person who cares about reducing pollution, if that person recognizes that there is nothing to stand by in climate change then reject it and look for what is reliable. Which is what I've done. Fight pollution, seek water solutions, and make the environment important without getting whiplashed by fake outs and bad character in climate change circles.

Before anyone complains that this is a wall of text, and "just words." I want to let you know. This was my attempt to not preach to the choir, but actually address the issues without mock or insult while letting you know what the issues actually are that are being ignored.