Only a quarter of climate change effects are natural, the rest is man made

Goodnight/morning

 

Great point, when I initially read the first article, I thought you turned the corner.... Not really, I couldnt wait to read the punch line!

One can only ascertain from the information you and BB have provided is how dodgy these climate denialists are. That's not having a go at you dumb because you're just a follower! All informationI have read to date that is not only provided by dumb, is completely dodgy. You don't have to be a scientist to work it out! I find it intriguing that climate denialist material is so easy to debunk if you know what to look for!
Denialist are simply trying to flood the Internet with their doctrine.

 

So then how can the science be settled?

You being a scientist and seeing one side contridict the other what have you to say about the many artciles that are on the net?

Who do you believe?

If the science was settled surely the scientific community wouldn't be divided would it.

If the theory showed up in the real world then all questions would be answered would they not?

There would be no need to squable.

 

AAHHH yes the met office says one thing means another, we should all become mind readers if we want to interpret what the met office says.

BTW isn't that where maggie thatcher first threw a bundle of money so they could find bad bad things about coal?

 

BTW DV

i think you have your wires crossed about big business.

You will find that the majority of skeptics are individual scientists and volunteers that are not on the big business gravy train.

How can you make a statement like that????

Banks, wall street, and big business are the ones that will gain from carbon derivatives hell they are even allowed to wrote the laws ffs just ask Blythe Masters over at Morgan Chase.

Banks have given $50 billion dollars towards gearing the world up for AGW.

How on earth can you make such a statement, are you a seeker of truth or smoeone who just likes self gratification? Trying to prove others wrong?

Which is it then?

 

The "worldview bias" of the denialists is very well known and indeed forms part of the "debunking handbook" http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html. It is the desire to grab anything that even remotely supports a position regardless of whether that information comes from a source like CSIRO or a kook like "Lord" Monkton.

Dumb, although he is once again indulging in the Ad Homs that got him onto my personal ignore list is right - I DO attack the source because you do not expect to buy your strawberries from a sewage farm - well, not unless you wash them really really well. It is standard in academia to look not only at results but where they came from ergo I do not trust "research" conducted and funded by the industry that stands to gain from the research - nobody does. Would you take a pill that a drug company, and only the drug company is saying is safe (thinks of Thalidomide, Vioxx, and many many others)


So, continuing on that theme of maybe research could be valid even if the source is suspect and again look at the Oregon petition (despite the fact it is one person running a family institute on a farm in Oregon) Oregon Petition COULD have been valid but it has failed the grade of reliability on several fronts making the "research" within the petition valueless

a) it was set up as a shonky deal set up as a scam

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

B) Names were not checked for validity, duplication or even current existence outside of fictional TV series (there were names from Star Wars and MASH)

C) No credentials were listed - so there is no way of checking if every signature is valid

D) Even today the definition of "scientist" given by the institute itself is so broad that they would accept me as being a good example of s climate scientist even though my academic credentials are in nursing in other words anyone with even a TAFE course in bottle washing would be accepted as a "scientist"

E) Real scientists who have found their names on the petition have requested removal have been denied

F) In not giving the percentage of the total it is again being deceptive

And yet despite this it is still on the internet and available and being quoted by denialists, journalists and even congress people (American don't know whether any of our pollies are equally as idiotic) as being a "good" petition

Ask yourself - if this were a new drug or wonder food that you were asking to ingest and the research backing it were as shonky as this - would you let it anywhere near your lips?

 

The world view bias of the denialits, yoy are jokung right!

At leat we dont call for alarmists to be burned at the steak like witches!

You place your faith in Mr.Cook who follows the manmade climate change religion verbatim and his blog, who's helpers study climate change part time and have no qualifications in the science?

Why is Lord Monkton a kook he did serve in parliament so why is he a kook and someone like Mr.Cook is not!

The CSIRO are working for the government and receive funds from the government to prove that manmade global warming is real, now if they came out and said that its false what would happen to their gravy train.

Then why are you listening to Mr.Cook he is also a salesman that has a misleading title to his blog and follows the manmade global warming religion zealously.

Your example is pathetic cause just like german company that issued Thalidomide and every body took it on face value that it was safe, the IPCC expects everyone including scientists that aren't on their payroll to take it on face value and not ask any questions.

For those that are brave enough to put their (the IPCC's) theory to the test they are ostracized and riduculed as some sort of scientific heretic, a lunatic that doesn't wantto save the planet from manmade CO2.

Now if the science was settled and the evidence was their for all to see would there be a need to resort to such tactics.

When newton first presented his work because the other scientists couldn't understand what he had explored they first ridculed him, but all science literature is there to be taken apart by anyone anywhere anytime.

When they finally got their heads around what newton had explored they were deeply opologetic about their ignorance and maybe arrogance.

When someone says the science is settled and gives his calculations, its up to all other scientists to analyse experiment and then indeed either agree or disagree.

No science is sacrosanct, not even the global warming relion science of the IPCC.

Yes i'm sure a bunch of volunteers have nothing better to do with their time than to put in the huge effort to produce a scam.

Not once but twice, cause it was conducted twice.

Wikipedia is your best source on this - what have you said about wikipedia in the past.

You filled out that profile a global warming religion zealot?

Sorry babe your defending a ponzy scheme with too many cracks in it, not only the evidence which existis only in the computer models but the whole kit and kaboodle of how why are to be saved by placing the our very existence on the global stock exchange to be traded in carbon derivatives by the people that have enslaved us all and now want to take over countries.

Have a look at Europe.

F=ma has been tested and tried no one can dispute it, done and dusted.

Afraid the same cant be said of the manmade global warming religions forecasts, which cant get tommorows weather right and you expect me to believe that they have the foresight to see what Earth will be 100 years from now.

Either you come up with evidence that global warming is real and happening right now or ****.

 

So, you have evidence dumb? You mean all those charts and debunked websites! Ill believe the 90 odd% of climatoligist than believe charts with information purposely left out and bodgey petitions!

 

Truth is TV that so many denialists are distracted by the continual accusation of "warmism is a religion" that they find it difficult to construct a meaningful argument. They deride Wiki while accepting the word of an "Institute" that has around 6 members, mostly family, and who has a reputation for dodgy deals (and if you think the petition is dodgy look up how the founder was one of those pushing mega doses of vitamin C as a cure all)

I would love to see ONE just ONE well constructed argument with a viable alternative

 

The more dumb posts information, the less credible his argument, unfortunately. You and DV do a great job of debunking information. The more desperate dumb gets the larger his posts become.

 

The real story is that the "consensus" does not have to be counted, it does not have to even be measured - it can be seen by the lack of validating data on any of the opposing views. It not even a matter of "No scientists are doing the research on other views" because believe me if the oil and coal industries (who employ more than a couple of scientists themselves) could have found a believable alternative they would have been promoting it to a fare thee well

There is a TON of research (IPCC quotes over 3,000 papers) and it all points one way

 

So you don't trust anything coming out of organisations running on government 'climate change' funding. They will ignore anything contrary to their climate change mandate because it could effect their funding and their jobs. These people lapping up the $billions of government climate change funding will push the climate change agenda regardless in order to protect their own funding.

 

Prove that they are relying on "climate change funding" and I will review that data with suspicion but even the IPCC itself was originally set up to DISPROVE climate change - there had been a few warnings up to that point but the UN wanted to know the real story and regretted it ever since

But really what is the incentive to find that we are spoiling the atmosphere?

 

There are just over 6400 people working at the CSIRO.

The Gillard Government is giving them (CSIRO) $3 billion dollars from 2011 to 2015.

3000 million dollars in research what kind of research is this?

Now you recon they (CSRIO) are going to come out and say that the Global Warming Religion is bullsh!t.......

The Global Warming Religion is based on BIG MONEY for bankers and wall street.

This traitor of a PM even admits it.

 

Hey guys & gals

I've been looking into what sort of bikies the CSIRO pay for certain positions, here are some examples

1. Senior Human Resources Manager - 75k to 85k plus 15.4% superannuation

http://csiro.nga.net.au/publicfiles...-6e104556d1eb/Position Details TAS1203925.pdf

2. Research Scientist - 89k to 120k plus 15.4% superannuation

http://csiro.nga.net.au/publicfiles...ad-6e0edf11307d/Position Details Q1203840.pdf

3. Fire safety engineer - 80k to 96k 15.4% superannuation

http://csiro.nga.net.au/publicfiles...5ecbff941/VIC1204376 Fire Safety Engineer.pdf

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm a biochemist not an accountant, but isn't the 19.5% increase the Costello/Liberal increase to $2.8 billion and didn't the Gillard Government only increase it from 2.8 to 3 billion which is an increase of less then 10%.

Well that's what I make of it. If that is so then the Gillard government is enticing them with a smaller carrot.

 

The manmade global catastrophe desease set in well before Gillard backed stabbed her way into office.

The Howard government was also throwing money at the CSIRO to see what they could come up with.

 

Ah ...now I see, it's a bipartisan conspiracy, fancy the Commonwealth throwing money for Scientific and Industrial Research at an Organisation like the CSIRO to try and find answers. What is the world coming to.

All they needed to do was to look here, Dumb has demonstrated that the links against Global Warming out number those for it by 99-1.

Would have saved us 3 billion.

 

Look if your interested i am going to start taking money for my next pilot game, its like a pyramid scheme.

You give me $800 and buy a seat on my plane at the first meeting if enough people turn up i will take of as pilot with $8000.

You will then have to go from passenger to pilot by getting as many people as you can to come onboard.

Let me know DV, if you believe in AGW you will believe anything.

FFS imagine if there was real world evidence instead of computer models LOL.

 

I don't have to imagine it, I already do. And I imagine what it could be like if we ignored any of them, it's why I believe in what I say.

 

.............lol

 

Gee sounds like a lot - until you apply the SAME analysis used on the "Oregon Petition" by asking - what percentage of the total scientific society does that represent?

See CSIRO is not the only scientific body in Australia that is affected or concerned by the science

There is the entire Bureau of Meteorology

All of the Universities (and last I looked there were perhaps 6 "contrarian/sceptics out of all of the research scientists across all of the universities). These days even scientists working in private industry such as the mining industry have come out and said climate change is happening and it is down to too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

And have you any proof that a) that money will be all going to climate research and b) that the money is tied to specific findings? i.e. that the funding will all go away if they do not find what the government wants them to find

Actually a good deal of it is vaccine research

Now I can offer proof upon proof of Big Oil and Big Energies backing of astroturf campaigns against global warming, false scientific research and publications, governmental lobbying to prevent action on climate change...............

Good grief EXxon even publicly ADMITTED to what they have been doing - and then went on doing it!!

 

IS that all??

I get more than that and I am a NURSE!

Lecturer in Nursing

http://careers.acu.edu.au/jobDetail...ationID=&lCategoryID=2283&stp=AW&sLanguage=en

 

my point was precisly that although the super is good the pay isn't the best.

ooohhh nurse eehhh i have a soft spot for nurses.

keep up the good work bowerbird i know you have one of the most difficult jobs ever.

 

You dont have to take my word on it that the carbon tax is a ponzy scheme that will fleece our nation.

Here our PM admits it.

WTF more do you want???


"International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade. Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share." Julia Gillard