Originally Posted by bugalugs View Post CSIRO and BOM have been advising your that more extreme weather conditions are becoming more common I see you havent read the current IPCC report. In it they shy away from such ludicrous statements. Come on bugs if you are going to try spread the lie at least TRY to be on the same page as your high priests. here is what they really say about it. a lack of direct observations and a lack of agreement in the available scientific studies regarding global warming and drought. In common terms, a lack of direct observations and a lack of agreement in scientific studies means such assertions amount to unproven speculation rather than fact. Moving on to tropical cyclones, Dahe reports, Confidence in any long-term trend in tropical cyclone intensity, frequency or duration is assessed to be low.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeNDSeknn_c"]Tim Flannery's bizarre, unscientific & globalist rant - YouTube[/ame] tim being a wack job...why do we pay this idiot???????????
Yes - he says the warming is permanent. This is certainly true. And he suggests that extensive periods of drought will also be a permamnet feature of out climate. This is also likely true. "There is absolutely no debate that Australia is warming," said Dr Jones. "It is very easy to see it is happening before our eyes." The only uncertainty now was whether the changing pattern was "85 per cent, 95 per cent or 100 per cent the result of the enhanced greenhouse effect". "There is a debate in the climate community, after close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent. Certainly, in terms of temperature, that seems to be our reality, and that there is no turning back. If you ar ereally interested - you can read a more detailed description here: http://www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_026.pdf I understand that you will only accept the version of this story that Alan Jones gives you - but you really should try to read a little more widely. desperately clinging tp on out of context word is quite pathetic
I don't think anyone that has been caught repeatedly posting statements which have shown to be untrue is is any position to be calling any one a "wack job" We are still waiting for explanations: When did the IPCC and UEA get "caught out lying and fudging the data "? What was this "data"they supposedly fudged? You wrote "No warming in the last 15 years" Could you please provide some evidence to support this statement? Or apologise to the forum for telling a lie. And are you ever going to tell us what prediction Flannery made that was wrong? We have already established that you statement was a lie when you when you said he said: "that we wouldnt see good rain again and that dams would never fill" So what did he actually predict? Could you please explain these false statements you have been making? Why do you keep running away from explaining why you have posted statements that you now know to be lies?
I know you might not like Bolt & Jones, but on this occasion they are 100% correct, and I think you know it, but you are too stubborn to admit it. I would dare or challenge anyone form an amateur to a professional to offer a difference between reducing the “planets temperature” and reducing the rate of “temperature increase”. The above are the words you used Bugs in trying to excuse this forced carbon tax on the Australian people when scientists have now proven that Australia’s tiny reductions will have NO effect on the planets temperature. The contradiction is staring you in the face Bugs and maybe you need to read it a few time, because if you cannot see it, then you really are just blowing it out your bum for the sake of it. Seriously; what the hell are you rambling on about?
We alawys used to get storms over christmas/new year. Don't let 12 years of drought fool you into think that rain and storms are something new.
If the "flim-flam-man" "troll queen" and the "poo-scooper" had their way, we would be all kneeling down in worship to the Global climate god for the changes that are happening. LOL Of course things are repeating themselves, that's what the planets weather cycle is all about, but you cannot get it through these knit-wits heads - they think its a miracle from the Global weather GOD's.
Mummy! Mummy! Where are you Mummy? Quick call the moderator police on this bad person. Mummy! Mummy! Mummy! Where are you Mummy!
Mummy! Mummy! Where are you Mummy? Quick call the moderator police on this bad person. Mummy! Mummy! Mummy! Where are you Mummy!
WTF?!?!? Are you serious? You don't understand the difference between reducing temperature and reducing the increase in temperature? Do you drive a car? If you accelerate from 0 to 50 km/h in 10 seconds, and then accelerate from 50 to 100 km/h in 20 seconds. Have you reduced your speed? No - you have reduced the rate of increase of your speed. I have never said that Australias tiny reductions will have NO effect on the planets temperature. I said the exact opposite. I have never said that Australias tiny reductions WILL have effect on the planets temperature. Australias tiny reductions will reduce the rate of increase. Do you drive a car? If you accelerate from 0 to 50 km/h in 10 seconds, and then accelerate from 50 to 100 km/h in 20 seconds. Have you reduced your speed? No - you have reduce the rate of increased of your speed. I am not the one with the comprehension problem Seriously; what the hell are you rambling on about? Do you drive a car? If you accelerate from 0 to 50 km/h in 10 seconds, and then accelerate from 50 to 100 km/h in 20 seconds. Have you reduced your speed? No - you have reduced the rate of increase of your speed. It is a simple concept. Try to learn it.
What is this "planets weather cycle" you are referring to? Could you provide a reference? Wikipedia would be fine. Or did you just make it up? We both know the answer - don't we.
El Nino, La Nina, and similar cycles aren`t recognised by the new AGW religion. The message of the AGW church, is that the problems of the world can be solved by lots of money, other people`s money, and plenty of it.
Why do you make things up like this? Firstly, you wrote - "El Nino, La Nina, and similar cycles" - El Nino and La Nina are the same cycle. It is called the El Nino Southern Oscillation. ENSO. I don't know why you think it is not considered in AGW. It is certainly addressed in the Physical Science Basis section in the IPCCs 4th Assessment Report: 8.4.7 El Niño-Southern Oscillation http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-4-7.html I think you should apologise to the forum for posting a silly lie. Don't you?
ROFLMAO! You're trying to tell me what I remembered in the 1970s??? Your post is pure comedy gold! I love it, mate I can't stop laughing!!! The late Stephen Schneider in his 1976 book: "I have cited many examples of recent climate variability and repeated the warnings of several well known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in - perhaps one akin to the little ice age" So to use one of Bug's favourite quotes: Apologise to the forum for telling a lie Go to the 42min mark of this video [ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010"]Green_House_Conspiracy.wmv[/ame]
yes. I am telling you what you remember from the 70s. You remember a Time magazine article. Written by a journalist. The general scientific consensus of the time - even in the 70s - was that anthropogenic emissions were causing he planet to warm: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting global cooling and an imminent ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 You have given us the opinion of one scientist of the time. A scientist who also said in the same article you are quoting: A consensus among scientists today would hold that a global increase in atmospheric aerosols would probably result in a cooling of the climate; however, a smaller but growing fraction of the current evidence suggests that it may have a warming effect. That is one opinion of the time. Or you could look at a broader opinion: Report of an Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, July 23-27, 1979, to the Climate Research Board, Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Research Council not just ONE person - who said: The primary effect of an increase of CO2 is to cause more absorption of thermal radiation from the earths surface and thus to increase the air temperature in the troposphere. A strong positive feedback mechanism is the accompanying increase of moisture, which is an even more powerful absorber of terrestrial radiation. We have examined with care all known negative feedback mechanisms, such as increase in low or middle cloud amount, and have concluded that the oversimplifications and inaccuracies in the models are not likely to have vitiated the principal conclusion that there will be appreciable warming. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12181 and then - you could look at an actual study of all papers published in teh period: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 You are dead set, 100%, completely wrong. Put on your man pants and admit it.
Good Video. As I have predicted, this climate change nonsense and everyone running around wanting to tax carbon emissions is all about the new world global economy of buying and selling pollution to make the top 5 richest people in the world even more wealthier. Although, some dummies still don't understand or comprehend that the carbon tax has nothing at all to do with saving the planet, but all to do with the new world global economy of buying and selling pollution. They still don't understand that the Australian politicians GILLARD did not commit 100% of the carbon tax raised in Australia to be used in Australia for Australian green sustainable projects---- Buying and selling pollution!! LOL LOL LOL Stuff like this should ONLY belong in comic books; not in real life. LOL
Maybe you should call the moderator police to investigate for you? Mummy, mummy, mummy, where are you mummy? The naughty man is here in disguise again. Mummy, mummy, mummy, where ARE you mummy!! LOL LOL
C`mon bugs, man up, you don`t have a comprehensive, or functional understanding of the fledgling science of climatology, so you repeat the selected distortions that the AGW priests and nuns have ordered you to memorise. Mate, you are being treated with contempt, don`t let them brainwash you, question your church, be a man.
Bugs doesn't even want to know the reasons why his beloved Julia and Bob are giving away $billions in revenue from the carbon tax to the UN. Bugs doesn't even want to know the reasons why his beloved Julia & Bob have not committed 100% of the revenue from the carbon tax to sustainable green projects IF the carbon tax was SO important. "Oh Bugs, you've done it again"
Did you see how Schneider's cheek starts to twitch when the interviewer mentions his quote in Schneiders book "I have cited many examples of recent climate variability and repeated the warnings of several well known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in - perhaps one akin to the little ice age"....and then eventually Schneider admits "I said that because at the time it was true"
Playing ducks and drakes with petty semantics is the refuge of the deceiver. Real people who live in the real world deal with real life, while use up artists sit on their backsides dodging around, hiding from reality, going nowhere & trying to take others nowhere with them.
