Hi Bazz,

Thanks, that's a great explanation of why you denialists are so determined to discredit AGW. For you it's a simple matter of not wanting to do anything about it because you don't want to spend money on it.

Thanks again, we finally know the reason for your denial of AGW. It has nothing to do with science; for denialists it is just all about being greedy and selfish.

the warmist scientist are as desperate as the evolutionist frauds in their attempt to find the missing link. No wonder they have to keep lying, changing textbooks and moving on to the next prophetic failure.

runner just said:

'the warmist scientist are as desperate as the evolutionist frauds in their attempt to find the missing link. No wonder they have to keep lying, changing textbooks and moving on to the next prophetic failure.'

Goodness gracious, it just gets worse every minute! I suppose runner has a dozen degrees like Loudmouth. What's gone gone with our education system?

What's gone wrong with our education system?

I saw an article and video with a female One Nation MP a few weeks back.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-22/teachers-schools-lashed-as-conservatives-fear-leftist-agenda/11648892

"We need to get back to basics" she proclaimed.
"We need to get back to the three R's: Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic."

Is it true this is what the Three R's stand for?

Writing and Arithmatic don't even start with an R.
- And I don't know when they stopped using 'arithmetic', but when I went to school the subject was called 'mathematics.

Why am I bringing this up?
When I went to school they had this thing called 'SQ3R'.
This was the strategy for learning at that time.
SQ3R stands for Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQ3R

I don't know what these people were taught but for me, the three R's were Read, Recite, Review;
- And they actually start with an 'R'.

Opinion, it is not a case of not believing science.
It is just that the conventional science seems dodgy and there is an
alternative science with an answer that accords with history.
You are certainly taking the AGW theory at their word, you are very
certain on that.
I am very doubtful of the AGW theory because it has failed most of its predictions.
I am interested in the Svenmark hypothesis because it agrees with
histories warming periods and the present one.
Surely only the blind would ignore that ?

Dear Bazz,

Rubbish!

"Climate models have accurately predicted global heating for the past 50 years, a study has found.

The findings confirm that since as early as 1970, climate scientists have had a solid fundamental understanding of the Earth’s climate system and the ability to project how it will respond to continued increases in the greenhouse effect. Since climate models have accurately anticipated global temperature changes so far, we can expect projections of future warming to be reliable as well.

The research examines the accuracy of 17 models published over the past five decades, beginning with a 1970 study and including 1981 and 1988 models led by James Hansen, the former Nasa climatologist who testified to the US Senate in 1988 about the impacts of anthropogenic global heating. The study also includes the first four reports by the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC).

“We found that climate models – even those published back in the 1970s – did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred,” said Zeke Hausfather, of the University of California, Berkeley, and lead author of the paper."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/04/climate-models-have-accurately-predicted-global-heating-study-finds