Austraila wildfire proves climate change is anythng but a hoax

FYI, Australia is a big country. The majority of Australia has experienced normal to highest on record rainfall. There have been plans to pipe water from the north since 1930. The southern tip of Australia is in the Hadley cell band where air is dryer. If warming expands the equatorial belt then they will see more rainfall.

 

Oh... so now your question changes to "until 2014"

Well... first you need to look up the Filibuster Rule. That might help you understand. But, since you are moving the goal posts, I'm not in the mood to look it up for you, or what bills were filibustered. Because you would just change the goal posts some more....

 

Not moving posts. Just stating facts.

And the most pertinent fact is my original point. Climate changers are impotent snowflakes that either aren’t serious or are inept fools.

 

The answer to the only legitimate question you have made (the others are completely idiotic) has been compiled here...

https://www.ipcc.ch/

Good luck.. you have much to read. Assuming, of course, that this question is legitimate and you really want to know.

 

That does not answer why YOU believe in AGW.

 

But these "snowflakes" and "inept fools", like it or not, are having better luck at convincing the public than science denialists. So comparing "inept" people... guess which ones are getting the upper hand....

 

Yes it does.

 

Do you believe everything the government tells you? Why do not believe in AGW? What in this report convinced you? That all climatologists or scientists agree with the report because that is not true?

 

I believe the science and like Golem have read the ipcc reports more I understand what terms like “systematic review of literature” and “meta analysis of evidence” actually mean

I DONT get my information second hand. I have done my own Research of published data, as has virtually every “warmest” on the board and the science is pretty bloody compelling

But you don’t have to believe the science as the evidence is all around

This year rainforest that have remained wet forest since Australia was part of Gondwana, burnt

Now those same areas are experiencing “rain bombs” with more than 300 millimeters (over 1 inches) falling in some locations.

 

That's a long story. I'll summarize. I first became aware of the issue by reading Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan's "Cosmos" and later "A Pale Blue Dot" in the 80s. Back then the debate was between "Global Warming" vs "Global Cooling". I followed the debate between the two closely. There was no definite answer at the time. I found myself little by little siding a bit more siding more often with the "warmers". I had no Internet at the time, so the process of learning was slow. Finally got my hands on the Internet and BBS boards in the early 90s. But I was not 100% convinced. And even questioned it in some instances. I know what ultimately convinced me was an article in the magazine "Science" I read while waiting at a doctor's office. I think that was 2004. Then I looked it up online

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

 

I also understnad them. However, do you understand the calculations which went into the calculations.

There is no doubt that there is climate change. That has never been an issue as far as I am concerned. The issue is how much man is responsible for, what we are capable of doing about it and how accurate are their forecasts. They have never been very accurate in those forecasts. They are basically taking a trend and projecting them out. Based on previous years, they were forecasting a massive tornado outbreak in 2018. It turned out to be the lowest recorded number of tornadoes since 1950.

 

So a magazine article convinced you. Not any great understanding of the science. I will go back to a major problem I have with the science. They are claims of 97% agreement by scientists. There is no such agreement. The last I saw with an actual survey of scientists there was about 40% of the scientists that had significant doubts bout the science. That tells me that there is a problem and the debate should continue rather than calling it a settled science. Disagreement and questioning should be encouraged.

 

The Palestinians didn’t know how to grow olive trees, so the Israelis took over the olive trees to show the Palestinians how the Palestinians have been growing them for thousands of years. So now the Jews grow and harvest the olive trees just like the Palestinians had done, but better, because, you know, Jews are God’s chosen people.

 

Science is the premier science magazine. One doesn’t find global warming articles in Science or Nature, the other premier journal. although they are merging into one journal.

 

It is still a magazine written by people and there is still significant disagreement among scientists.

 

Why do you ask me questions if you have no intention to read the answer?

Not any more than I have of Aeronautics before I board an airplane, or of Medical Science when I undergo a medical procedure. Just enough to understand the difference between established science and what is not science.

I don't think you could have written anything more absurd even if you tried. You question my conclusion because of what you call "understanding of science". Then you claim you are going to explain your problem with "the science". But what you talk about is... opinions????

Man! You have a looong way to go to catch up. Sorry but you don't even understand what Science is. So this is like trying to explain the Geological Eras to somebody who believes the Earth is only four thousand years old.

I say again: don't bother trying to understand the science. Don't bother trying to make up your mind about whether AGW is real or not. What you need to do is just stay out of the way of those who are fixing it. Ok?

Not everybody is equipped to understand the intricacies of Science.... So why bother?

 

I’m indifferent about it except for the entertainment value of watching warmers fall for false narratives and emotional appeals. It’s also interesting to watch people brag about getting the upper hand by hook and crook and then do nothing concrete about the “problem” they are marketing.

Oh, by the way, do you know why Republicans were able to filibuster some of the legislation during Obama’s tenure? Wanna guess? It wasn’t snowball man.

 

I read your answer. You said you were convinced by a magazine. Still no great understanding of he science. You are at the mercy of what they want to tell you.

Read the 737 Max.

If scientists do not believe it, there is a problem.

So whatever they feed you, you will believe.

 

The history of aviation is interesting. When they first started flying over a hundred years ago, the aircraft were dynamically unstable. By the time they got to WWI, they pretty much had that solved by moving vertical and horizontal stabilizers and controls to the back of the aircraft. By the time they got well into the 20th century, they started building fighter aircraft which were dynamically unstable because they could get more speed and maneuverability out of them. On board computers were used because they could react faster than a human. The military was able to get away with it because they did not push the envelope and the pilots were trained to handle it. Then comes the 737 max. A passenger aircraft where they pushed the envelope. They took it too far and a relative minor glitch could send the aircraft out of control along with hundreds of passengers who could not eject.

So much for man's judgement and the infallibility of science.

 

NO one filibustered **** because Schumer took the rule out of play...

 

Not as interesting as it is to watch people who brag about how Global Warming is not going to affect them... "Interesting" might not be the right word. "Amusing" might be better. The best one or all would get me in trouble with the mods

 

How hopeless is it to try to explain science to somebody who doesn't even know the difference between science and technology?

 

Wrong!!!! Start by understanding the basic facts.

Uhmmmm ..."Schumer"???

Actually that's pretty laughable.

 

Climate change causes people to light fires.
Police Take Legal Action Against More Than 180 in Australia’s Most Populous State for Alleged Bushfire-Related Offenses
By Katabella Roberts
January 7, 2020 Updated: January 9, 2020
https://www.theepochtimes.com/nearl...-deliberately-lighting-bushfires_3195827.html

 

That is really a dumb statement. Both involve science. Neither is an exact science. However, the science on the 737 Max is immensely simpler technology than the climate. They know nearly completely what factors affect the 737 Max. However, trying implement it they still messed it up. There are a virtually unlimited list of unknowns in trying to change and predict the climate.