Australia suffers most extreme warming

Hang on - you keep dissing sceptical science but somehow that is NOT "shooting the messenger"?

You have never done the analysis I just performed

I PROVED that that site was not being truthful and yet you claim I have simply dismissed it out of hand. Why should I do further analysis on the work of one lone nutter who thinks that a photo of a tree is proof the sea levels are not rising?

 

I don't dismiss scepticalscience I have only called it for what it is, an extreme alarmist site. I have never said, "because it is on scepticalscience it is not true" like you do with any site that refutes alramist statements. I have only implied that there may be a little bias in stuff from that site. You on the other hand have made the outrageous suggestion that because one of your most hated 'denialists' gave his approval to the research findings of Moner we should now dismiss his findings! Monckton has got nothing whatsoever to do with Moners research findings but you are in such an illogical emotional state over people disagreeing with your agw religion that now in your mind Moner is somehow 'tainted' because Monckton uttered is name in a tone of approval!

Rubbish, you clearly didn't read Moners interview that I referenced beacuse he mentions the tree, you have proved nothing and here too you are condemming the site, not the scientific findings being reported.

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and
Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.
He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission
on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and
leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has
been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for
some 35 years.

http://www.climatecooling.org/globalcoolingdocuments/NilsAxelMornerCredentials.htm

This according to you is 'a lone nutter'? Shooting the messanger again! What is YOUR earth science degree? Morner has spent most of his life studying sea levels, he is one of the worlds most eminent authorities on sea levels and his credentials on this subject are beyond reproach. But to you he is just a lone nutter, why? because he refutes your religion.

Please provide us with counter claims from scientists with similar credentials.

 

These are the Governments documented facts surrounding the introduction Australia’s carbon tax. The mathematical scientific data produced by climate scientists to support Australia’s carbon tax.

The formula:

Australia was to reduce its carbon emissions by 0.004% over 18 years. These climate scientists producing this mathematical data suggested that this reduction would reduce the entire planets temperature by 0.00001 degree.

Not one scientist who previously made these claims, and produced this data, will publicly advocate that Australia’s reduction in carbon emission will have any effect in the overall global temperature that they advocate is causing climate change.

All the climate data and information is speculation, based on Earth’s singular environmental patterns, and that’s reasonable to gain a theory. But what is not reasonable, is that this data does not include the possible influences the Earths moon and other astral bodies in our solar system and our Galaxy is having on our planets weather system.

We know what massive influences the moon has on the Earths tides, and the tides can influence weather. We also know what influences sun spots and sun flares have on the sun weather patters, which inturn effects the Earths climate system, but none of that data has been taken into consideration.

No one knows exactly what other influences other planets and their moons in our solar system have on the earths weather system. Humanity doesn't have the intellectual capabilities to know all this information yet.

I agree, that humanity should be doing more to advance sustainable renewable power and technology, but if politicians want to put a carbon tax on Australian businesses, which then filters down to increase the daily prices the population has to pay on manufacturing and agriculture; then shouldn’t these politicians be leading by example?

How many ALP and Greens politicians supporting the carbon tax took a train or bus to work instead of being chauffer driven, but they expect the people to shut-up; be taxed; and take public transport to reduce carbon emissions. They gave pensioners $200 per year to help with the carbon tax increases on goods, but just before the carbon tax introduction, they gave themselves an additional $5000 inclusive to their salary increase.

 

Proof?

Do you have ONE link that proves this allegation? Come on now ONE link so SOMEONE somewhere on the internet who agrees with this……..?

 

How is that different from dismissing it when you will not look at any of the evidence from that site?

((((((((((Sigh)))))))))) No that is NOT what I have been saying. What I have been saying is that there are sites on the internet whose content is valid and sites whose content is a bloody laugh and a half. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you believe everything on a site like "Abovetopsecret" http://www.abovetopsecret.com or the "examiner" http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/n...-of-artifacts-on-mars-without-comment#slide=1 or even DHMO http://www.dhmo.org??

Obviously there has to be a way to sorting the chaff from the grain or even the excreta from the fan and one way is to examine the honesty of the site. IF the site is presenting material in such a way as to be dishonest then you should not trust it.

Beyond an allegation that Skeptical Science is "alarmist" what validation do you have for NOT accepting the material presented from that site?

A little bias - excuse me while a spend some time laughing. I guess that also means next time I quote from SS you will accept the information?

That is not what I said and misrepresenting me like you are continuing to do is the most rapid way known to get onto my R&R list (read and report - I no longer respond just review for rule infractions and report when I see them)

Comments like this one that are personal attacks

Didn't get to that because I did not know that was what you were referring to - next time please be more specific

You claim SS is biased and then use a site called "Climate cooling"? What makes you think THEY are unbiased?

Let us instead compare this information with what is on Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_Mörner

"Former" head……….. looks like your site is either dishonest or out of date.

No, he actually is pretty well discredited because no-one has been able to repeat his results, most of which were around based upon observations of one tree in the Maldives,

Oh! And be careful because I am getting tired of the Ad Homs

No worries MATE!!

How about CSIRO??
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

Or this one - and note it is linked to the papers it quotes and is NOT misrepresenting those papers
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=183
or these people
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg
Or these people who have a pretty impressive international reputation
http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/sea-level-rise

and then there is wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Against that you have one elderly old gentleman who has made a claim no one else has been able to replicate based on some very dodgy analysis

 

Who said I don't look at that site?

That is clearly what you implied, that Morner is somehow diminished simply because Monckton praised him.

So you don't bother reading any of the references that I have provided. It is clear that you don't because if you did bother to read my reference to Morner you would stop repeating the alarmist fallacy about the tree.

Here you go attacking the site again instead of the content. If I can show you some biased or even flat out incorrect content on scepticalscience will you stop trusting and quoting them?

Probably out of date, I don't know, maybe Wiki is wrong. But so what? Doesn't change Morners standing.

Like I said, most of his observations are not based on a tree in the Maldives, that is a fallacy invented by arlarmist to try and discredit him. If you stop and use your brains you can work it out for yourself, I'll give you a little hint to get you started, Morner has been researching sea levels for over 35 years, he only did one project in the Maldives.....

So tell us, what was the claim made by Morner that no else has been able to replicate?

If you had bothered to read the reference to Morner you would find that all the above links agree with him! It is probably Morner's graphs and data that they are using. I'm sorry, I should have been more specific with regard to Morners claims, he doesn't claim sea levels aren't rising, just that the rise is not due to agw and the rise will not be anything like alarmists claim of nearly a metre in the next hundred years. His estimates are a rise of around 1 - 1.5mm per year exactly what all your references above claim and further to that the rise has been constent for hundreds of years. Contrary to alarmists who had us all drowning in fifty years time!! Sorry, that was an exageration, but not by much.

 

I'm not doing your homework for you, but if you want to learn, here is one link. There are dozens of credible links on google to investigate.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/se_body.html

http://johnhumphreys.com.au/2012/07/03/australias-carbon-tax-and-global-temperatures/

 

I have no intentions of getting in the mud, and endlessly debating this topic. The fatcual point reamin; scientists advocating climate change had never taken any other factors into consideration, besides human intervention, and that is a faulty logic to make an accurate theory. When climate scientists start telling the truth, and start taking all factors into consideration, that's when I will start listening to them, but until such time, they are just p-i-s-s-i-n-g into the wind.

The CSIRO is owned and controlled by the Government. If the Government demands them to produce a report indicating climate change is casued by human intervention, don't you honestly think they are going to produce such a report by manipulating data? Businesses, companies and departments manipulate data every day of the week, and you don't think the CSIRO) being paid by the Government to manufacture and manipulate data wouldn't do it...

Don't you have enough intelligence to know when someone is peeing on your leg, and trying to convince you its raining?

 

Yes we do, which is why we take no notice of your pee.

Now as for your links in previous post.

The first link says absolutely nothing, of course the sun affects the climate. Even a dumb ass who believes the RBA is a privately owned company should know that.
As the earth revolves around the sun, it does so on an elliptical orbit, in summer, this orbit brings the Earth closer to the sun which makes the Earth warmer. In winter, the orbit causes the Earth to move further from the sun, which makes the Earth colder.

Now on this planet Earth, we have things called Green Houses. Most are made of glass and they create an artificial climate within the greenhouse.. Now this is what the user of the greenhouse wants, he wants to trick the plants into thinking it is a different season, or that the plants are growing in a different geographical position.

Nature also builds greenhouses, a small wooded area acts as a greenhouse, the tree canopy trapping some moisture and stopping the heat from the day escaping during the night. Every tree we cut down affects this natural greenhouse. Examples of the affect of deforestation can be seen in the desert. No trees and very little vegetation allows the area to cool much more than it would if it was a forest, hence desert temperatures although very high during daylight, drop significantly during the night.

The Earths temperature has fluctuated throughout time, this has been a natural phenomenon and although the world is what it is today because of it, it hasn't always been in the best interest of the life forms on earth and during several periods of increased or decreased temperatures, has caused the extinction of many species as well as the proliferation of others. Now maybe this phenomenon has created the world we know today, and a natural change in the future could and most probably would completely change the natural order of things, this is mostly beyond our control.

However, the majority of people, both lay and professional believe that we, mankind, is playing an unnatural role in these otherwise natural fluctuations. Now we are not doing this to offset the deleterious affects of natural climate change, we are doing it to make cheap toasters, disposable toasters, in plastic bags, packed between Styrofoam molded blocks, packed in cardboard boxes, sat on shelves of Big W, Coles or Kmart for around $10 to $12. When this toaster breaks down, which is usually often, we do not take it to the guy in the little repair shop any more, we often don't eve take it to be recycled. It is instead, unceremoniously dumped into the wheelie bin and we whip down to the store and buy another.

Greed, it is usually greed, laziness or not thinking that creates this sad state of affairs.

What this does, along with having wall to wall air conditioning, too many lights, driving cars unnecessarily etc etc is to pollute our planet. The metal used are usually alloys that require chemical and other processes, the cases are plastic, the plastic bag, the cardboard box, the land freight, the sea freight, all these combine to make that toaster a pretty dirty piece of work.

There are thousands of factors affecting the global temperatures, most of them are natural and besides changing orbits, building gigantic bubble communities or moving to another planet, there is very little man can do about them. BUT, man can do something about his opulence, his desire to have everything that opens and shuts, his greed to have more and pay less.

Even if global warming is not a factor, even if it is not happening, even if ... whatever. We do not need to be digging up every inch of the planet looking for more resources to make more toasters to break down to be dumped back into the holes. We do not need to be using chemicals that scare even me ( a chemist) and that I personally wouldn't be using. We do not need to have a V8, especially an older one that is less fuel efficient (and I am a rev head from way back). We do need to be more frugal with our resources, we do need to be more careful of the substances we use and the long term affects of their use and disposal and affect on man and his environment.

Even if the income from a carbon tax/pricing scheme was used to buy dog food for the rich peoples snotty nosed dogs, IF it causes us to cut back on usage and in particular waste,then it must be a good thing. If however the money is used to buy so far unspoiled carbon soaks like the amazon rain forests, before greedy miners find some resources located under them, it will be a better world.

Even if it costs the average person an extra $10 per week that's no big deal, show me a person who doesn't waste $10 per week and I will show you my Dad.

Even if it makes no difference to the climate, if we use less resources, we pollute less, use more friendly chemicals etc then we have done good.

If it does make a difference, if we are causing an unnatural change in our global temperatures, if the global warming is fact, if all the doomsayers are correct, then we could, just could save our Rses.

 

Jeeeezzzzz, DB you're not that uneducated are you? It's the tilt of the earths axis that causes summer and winter as it revolves around the sun. As for the rest of your post, mate, you're raving. But I do agree with many of your sentiments.

 

Edit/Insulting ~ Baiting/Stop This statement from a person who claims he has numerous university degrees, regarding the Earth and suns symbiotic weather relationship.

Bit early in the day for a grog, but this is what happens when someone is caught in the grip of the grape. Brain turns to shyte!!

Gotta show this one to the TAFE class.

I suppose the next thing will be the moon has no effect on the earths weather.

Edit/Insulting/Baiting I was suggesting that sun spots and other solar activity causes different weather patterns on earth, not just a regular seasonal change due to orbit position. LOL LOL

 

Oh so the position of the Earth in it's orbit has no affect and you are accusing someone else of being uneducated?

 

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/seasons/en/

 

Do I really have to explain the difference between season and climate to you?

 

OK I was wrong, it's been a long time since high school. But I am willing to admit it.

 

Mate, it's the tilt of the axis that causes summer and winter as the earth goes around the sun. Summer and winter are not caused by an elliptical orbit as DV suggests.

 

But the elliptical orbit affects the amount of energy the Earth gets for the northern and southern summers

 

I have already told you and linked TWICE to references about the claims Morner has made - even the Wiki site talks of it.

But AM - let us go back to that interview you are so passionate to defend

Hmmmm - forgive me for getting the impression he is stating it is not rising at all

Then there is this little gem

And this is what I have been saying that he is basing some of his allegations on one tree in one country
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/ar...rner-documents-a-decided-lack-of-rising-seas/

A tree he cannot even find again!

Then there are these experts who disagree with Morner

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-rise-what-the-experts-expect/comment-page-2/
http://www.newscientist.com/article...tes-faster-on-us-east-coast.html#.UpchpKX_Q4Y

Oh! BTW nice dodge on the demand that I find one expert disagreeing with Morner

Basically if you do not want to have egg all over your face vet the sites you are linking to to see how honest they are

 

You weren't entirely wrong mate - but let them bathe in the feeling of being correct, just once

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

Which shows it is a bloody sight more complicated than is being alluded to by the opposition

 

So it is 'some' of his allegations now. Last time it was 'most'. If you actually read what Morner says you will get the truth, that he doesn't base anything on the said tree, he just makes the comment that if the sea was rising the way the alarmist claimed it was the tree would have been washed away. Of great concern is his allegation that the IPCC has been very selective over the data they include in their findings and that they have manipulated data to get a desired result.

I stand corrected, Morner does say sea levels are rising little, if at all today. Did you actually read what Morner says and backs up with observable data on this site?

Fail BB. Neither of those articles even come close to disputing Morner with scientific facts. The first artical is about what a handfull of scientists THINK MIGHT HAPPEN so it is just opinion, pseudo science. The second site is not much better, no scientific facts or data just opinion again. Morner makes a claim then backs it up with facts and analysis of facts.

Trying to discredit the site again instead of disputing claims? If I can show you bias and flat out incorrect statements on scepticalsicience will you stop trusting them and stop quoting articles from that site? Don't want to answer that question do you.

 

Ever wonder if the 2053 nuclear bombs detonated on the planet have helped create climate change, but here has been NO mention of that in the climate change studies; reports and theories?

You do realise what significant damage these weapons do to the planets crust and eco-system?

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=34948


Have a read of 5: Operation Fuc# the sky - in the below link, very informative regarding current climate change.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19546_7-nuclear-weapon-screw-ups-you-wont-believe-we-survived.html

Watch the video.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2...y-scary-light-show-exploding-h-bombs-in-space


Governments have deliberately released a propaganda machine to brain-wash people into believing that ordinary men and women are to blame for climate change, through the over use of carbon. The truth is, the Governments and military have caused the climate patterns to change, through acts of random destruction on our own planet, by releasing nuclear bombs on the surface and in the atmosphere. When they were releasing these devastating weapons on the surface and in the atmosphere, they had NO idea what the aftermath was going to be to our environment.

We now know what the aftermath is: we are now being told it is climate change, cause by humans using too much carbon. LOL

 

Feel free to hide behind a cloak of ignorance while the rest of us get on with exploring and trying to understand the physical world

 

If exploring and understanding the physical world represents being in love with your own self importance, and rejecting other ideas out of blind fear; then good journey.

 

Exploring and understanding the physical world helps me develop enough knowledge to know when I have encountered an idiots errand. But please feel free to prove me arrogant, egotistical or full of my own self importance by finding me some solar variant that is at least higher than the variance the Earth experiences during its orbit. You are so (*)(*)(*)(*) sure, it should not be hard.

 

Starting a debate with an individual who has this much ego…