USA OUTLAWS EU Carbon Tax...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Towering Q,
Just as global warming lovers don't take much value from anti-warming websites, I also don't take much value from the website you provided, which is maintained by the "Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland", with articles and comments provided by many more "peer reviewed" alarmist scientists.
Just look at his temperature scale of "climate myths" which would be more accurately described as "global warming skeptic myths". I've never seen such a massive site full of propaganda. Links and picture to everything pro-warming, and also everything anti-denier. Not holding back for one second on putting down "deniers".
Wow!!
So when you're trying to have a go at Binghi by saying (emphasis added):
I'd respectively say the same to you, if you're going to quote articles from SkepticalScience!
Just as global warming lovers don't take much value from anti-warming websites, I also don't take much value from the website you provided, which is maintained by the "Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland", with articles and comments provided by many more "peer reviewed" alarmist scientists.
Just look at his temperature scale of "climate myths" which would be more accurately described as "global warming skeptic myths". I've never seen such a massive site full of propaganda. Links and picture to everything pro-warming, and also everything anti-denier. Not holding back for one second on putting down "deniers".
Wow!!
So when you're trying to have a go at Binghi by saying (emphasis added):
Binghi, the problem with reading Jo the Microbiologist's blog, is that it only reinforces your current beliefs. Have you tried widening out from Jo, wattsupwiththat and the ICSC?
Seasonally Adjusted
Denzel, there is an element of truth to what you say about quoting articles.
It is very easy to search the internet for material that suits your argument, and then post the links...both sides of this debate operate this way.
Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing. From my experience at least, it has forced me to dig deeper into this complex issue and learn more in the process. The key, I believe, is to keep an open mind whilst doing this...sometimes easier said than done.
What I do enjoy about Flying Binghi's contributions is his ability to 'play the ball...not the man.' He doesn't use colourful, emotive language like...'global warming lovers' and 'conspiracy theory nutters'. He just presents his case, and provides the links to back it up. Now I certainly don't agree with his view point most of the time, but that is part of the learning process, and is to be expected.
And finally, I don't agree with your assessment of John Cook, the creator of Skeptical Science, (surprise, surprise I hear you say!
)
One of Cook’s priorities is distilling math- and jargon-heaving journal articles into plain language – something that opponents of action to deal with climate change have been successful at.
Taken from...
Not all climate ‘skeptics’ are created equal | Vancouver Sun
It is very easy to search the internet for material that suits your argument, and then post the links...both sides of this debate operate this way.
Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing. From my experience at least, it has forced me to dig deeper into this complex issue and learn more in the process. The key, I believe, is to keep an open mind whilst doing this...sometimes easier said than done.
What I do enjoy about Flying Binghi's contributions is his ability to 'play the ball...not the man.' He doesn't use colourful, emotive language like...'global warming lovers' and 'conspiracy theory nutters'. He just presents his case, and provides the links to back it up. Now I certainly don't agree with his view point most of the time, but that is part of the learning process, and is to be expected.
And finally, I don't agree with your assessment of John Cook, the creator of Skeptical Science, (surprise, surprise I hear you say!
) One of Cook’s priorities is distilling math- and jargon-heaving journal articles into plain language – something that opponents of action to deal with climate change have been successful at.
Taken from...
Not all climate ‘skeptics’ are created equal | Vancouver Sun
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Towering Q,
At your post #178, you posted a link to an article on the SkepticalScience website and quoted some of that article.
I followed your link to that article and read it - and compared it to the article on which it was based (the essay by Alec Rawls - the leaker of the AR5 draft).
It appears the intent of the author of the SkepticalScience piece ("dana1981") is to play down and obfuscate the claims made by Rawls.
There were a number of bombshells in the Rawls essay but none of these were tackled by the dana1981.
The author quoted 3 of Rawls' non-bombshell statements and bolded a portion of one. I quote that one here, and reproduce her bolding:
Check out the bit she bolded. This was the only bit she bolded out of 3 quoted statements.
How's that for trying to baffle us with obfuscation?
The truly bombshell claims by Rawls, ignored by dana1981, are:
And,
And,
And finally:
At your post #178, you posted a link to an article on the SkepticalScience website and quoted some of that article.
I followed your link to that article and read it - and compared it to the article on which it was based (the essay by Alec Rawls - the leaker of the AR5 draft).
It appears the intent of the author of the SkepticalScience piece ("dana1981") is to play down and obfuscate the claims made by Rawls.
There were a number of bombshells in the Rawls essay but none of these were tackled by the dana1981.
The author quoted 3 of Rawls' non-bombshell statements and bolded a portion of one. I quote that one here, and reproduce her bolding:
"There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI [total solar irradiance] and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2."
How's that for trying to baffle us with obfuscation?
The truly bombshell claims by Rawls, ignored by dana1981, are:
"The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is."
"This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing."
"The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work."
"The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum."
Last edited by FGD135; 16th Dec 2012 at 01:39.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TQ, the link you provided is made to sound like John Cook is a sceptic. He never was, isn't now, and I'm sure we both agree that he never will be.
His aim on that website is, as the article mentions, is to debunk the claims of deniers by putting the "undeniable" evidence into plain language.
From the wording in that article and on his website, his whole work was to share his database of pro-manmade global warming articles. To put it another way, there is nothing on his website that even remotely could be considered a balanced discussion on any of the issues raised in the ongoing debate.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
His aim on that website is, as the article mentions, is to debunk the claims of deniers by putting the "undeniable" evidence into plain language.
From the wording in that article and on his website, his whole work was to share his database of pro-manmade global warming articles. To put it another way, there is nothing on his website that even remotely could be considered a balanced discussion on any of the issues raised in the ongoing debate.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Francis, I see only one problem with the US ruling. Those airliners are parked at EU sovereign airports for some small part of the trip. The US can jump up and down as much as they want...no money...no pushback!
As for the fallacy that is human induced climate change, even my high school physics and chemistry. Tech college thermodynamics and my flying meteorology tell me different. CO2 is a stable molecule. That alignment is a straight bar that is fairly resistant to excitation. Therein is the reason the signature of the presence of CO2 is depicted by two main frequencies of IR. the two bands correspond to the excitation of the molecule resulting in stretching and bending. This is where the science of CC is corrupted. Broad wavelength IR radiation is emitted into the atmosphere from the planet. Two specific wavelengths cause the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to vibrate...stretching and bending... High School physics and Thermo law number one says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So CO2 absorbs IR, an amount of that IR is converted to heat as a product of the vibration of the molecule. The excess is re-radiated at the same frequency in random directions...this is the con...by inference the heat is also transmitted in random directions. Half up and half down. Trapping the heat in lower atmosphere. This violates the second law. Heat only travels from a warmer object to a cooler object. Heat can only travel in one direction. The heat is not stored in the CO2 molecule the same way latent heat is stored in H2O. Now, this small band of IR is now deminished by about 8%. Every time it hits another CO2 molecule it keeps deminishing ....annihilation! All interesting if CO2 was the only constituent of our atmosphere. The pro people use the argument that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas that absorbs this wavelength of IR when compared to water vapour. However, when you put liquid water in the equation, CO2 is swamped!
Water vapour or liquid water. Psychrometery! Humidity, clouds, WEATHER! Latent heat and wide band IR absorption. There is no feedback because the heat still is emitted out into the atmosphere not trapping it like either the glass of a greenhouse or stopping advection similar to insulation ...as in trapping air and stopping its movement. Any AC engineer can tell you how insulation works. Any pilot can tell you how weather works. The first and second laws of Thermo are inviolate!
CO2 is not a strong driver of atmospheric heat. Increase concentration does not increase absorption linearly. The relationship decreases logarithmically. Methinks the realisation will drop as concentrations of CO2 continue increasing linearly. There is nothing wrong with reducing emissions. It makes economic sense and we have all been doing it since the oil shocks of the seventies. There are more of us on the planet but our footprint is not increasing directly. There are plenty of issues facing us. Using a tax on a trace gas as wealth redistribution is just so yesterday's socialism!
As for the fallacy that is human induced climate change, even my high school physics and chemistry. Tech college thermodynamics and my flying meteorology tell me different. CO2 is a stable molecule. That alignment is a straight bar that is fairly resistant to excitation. Therein is the reason the signature of the presence of CO2 is depicted by two main frequencies of IR. the two bands correspond to the excitation of the molecule resulting in stretching and bending. This is where the science of CC is corrupted. Broad wavelength IR radiation is emitted into the atmosphere from the planet. Two specific wavelengths cause the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to vibrate...stretching and bending... High School physics and Thermo law number one says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So CO2 absorbs IR, an amount of that IR is converted to heat as a product of the vibration of the molecule. The excess is re-radiated at the same frequency in random directions...this is the con...by inference the heat is also transmitted in random directions. Half up and half down. Trapping the heat in lower atmosphere. This violates the second law. Heat only travels from a warmer object to a cooler object. Heat can only travel in one direction. The heat is not stored in the CO2 molecule the same way latent heat is stored in H2O. Now, this small band of IR is now deminished by about 8%. Every time it hits another CO2 molecule it keeps deminishing ....annihilation! All interesting if CO2 was the only constituent of our atmosphere. The pro people use the argument that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas that absorbs this wavelength of IR when compared to water vapour. However, when you put liquid water in the equation, CO2 is swamped!
Water vapour or liquid water. Psychrometery! Humidity, clouds, WEATHER! Latent heat and wide band IR absorption. There is no feedback because the heat still is emitted out into the atmosphere not trapping it like either the glass of a greenhouse or stopping advection similar to insulation ...as in trapping air and stopping its movement. Any AC engineer can tell you how insulation works. Any pilot can tell you how weather works. The first and second laws of Thermo are inviolate!
CO2 is not a strong driver of atmospheric heat. Increase concentration does not increase absorption linearly. The relationship decreases logarithmically. Methinks the realisation will drop as concentrations of CO2 continue increasing linearly. There is nothing wrong with reducing emissions. It makes economic sense and we have all been doing it since the oil shocks of the seventies. There are more of us on the planet but our footprint is not increasing directly. There are plenty of issues facing us. Using a tax on a trace gas as wealth redistribution is just so yesterday's socialism!
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 16th Dec 2012 at 02:12.
Before anyone picks me on it. Latent heat and sensible heat wrt H20 changing state shouldn't need to be explained here. It certainly needs to be explained to warmists. The amount of energy emitted by CO2 after IR excitation doesn't hold a candle to water. 0.039% to 2.3%? A factor of a 1000? Yet somehow, this candle heats a furnace load of energy by a measurable amount.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Heh, temperatures didn't play ball so they need some excuse...
Well, lets have a look-see at a couple of books.
Via the book Living in the Hothouse by Ian Lowe, written in 2005. Page 51 referring to CSIRO climate temperature computer models... "All the modelling predicts significant temperature increases for Australia, even on a short time scale of 25 years." All the models, significant temperature increases - No ifs butts or maybe there..
Who's Ian Lowe; (2005 book reference) "Ian Lowe is... an emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University. An expert on global warming... contributed to IPCC... member of the Australian Climate Group..."
Via The Garnaut Climate Change Review 2008. Page 84, 4.2.1 Confidence in climate models:
"...The ability of climate models to accurately simulate responses in the climate system depends on the level of understanding of the processes that govern the climate system, the availability of observed data for various scales of climate response, and the computing power of the climate model... ...For some elements of the climate system, such as surface temperature, there is broad agreement on the pattern of future climate changes... ...The likelihood of a particular outcome can be assessed through the use of a range of models. However, outcomes at the high or low end of a range of model results may also be plausible..."
Garnaut gave himself plenty of outs there with the "high or low end" range. Trouble is the actual real world temps drop clean off the low end of the scale... so much for the "level of understanding", or as Al Gore and co would say "the science is settled"..
Now lets hear from a sceptic of the climate models used by Lowe and Garnaut...
Via The Climate Caper 2009, by Garth Paltridge, atmospheric physicist and a former Chief Research Scientist with CSIRO division of Atmospheric Research:
Page 34 "...Perhaps one of the biggest problems with numerical modelling is that it is a gentlemanly activity conducted entirely from one's desk. There is no need to visit the real world to often... ...The fact that the results may have nothing to do with the real world can conveniently be ignored. Other models take the place of observation...
...The high probability attached by the IPCC to its thesis of climate disaster is not the result of careful scientific analysis of theory verses experiment. Basically it derives from a set of people sitting around a table making personal guesses about the quality of the models..."
Looks like the IPCC geussed wrong... oh well, there's always the sun to blame..
.
Heh, temperatures didn't play ball so they need some excuse...
Quote via Towering Q #178:
In a way, this is precisely the "climategate" model: gain access to information that is not yet publicly available; sift through looking for useful bits; trumpet those bits out of context, relying on the target audience to buy it hook, line, and sinker without ever reading the original context.
In a way, this is precisely the "climategate" model: gain access to information that is not yet publicly available; sift through looking for useful bits; trumpet those bits out of context, relying on the target audience to buy it hook, line, and sinker without ever reading the original context.
via Towering Q #182:
It is very easy to search the internet for material that suits your argument,...
It is very easy to search the internet for material that suits your argument,...
Via the book Living in the Hothouse by Ian Lowe, written in 2005. Page 51 referring to CSIRO climate temperature computer models... "All the modelling predicts significant temperature increases for Australia, even on a short time scale of 25 years." All the models, significant temperature increases - No ifs butts or maybe there..
Who's Ian Lowe; (2005 book reference) "Ian Lowe is... an emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University. An expert on global warming... contributed to IPCC... member of the Australian Climate Group..."
Via The Garnaut Climate Change Review 2008. Page 84, 4.2.1 Confidence in climate models:
"...The ability of climate models to accurately simulate responses in the climate system depends on the level of understanding of the processes that govern the climate system, the availability of observed data for various scales of climate response, and the computing power of the climate model... ...For some elements of the climate system, such as surface temperature, there is broad agreement on the pattern of future climate changes... ...The likelihood of a particular outcome can be assessed through the use of a range of models. However, outcomes at the high or low end of a range of model results may also be plausible..."
Garnaut gave himself plenty of outs there with the "high or low end" range. Trouble is the actual real world temps drop clean off the low end of the scale... so much for the "level of understanding", or as Al Gore and co would say "the science is settled"..
Now lets hear from a sceptic of the climate models used by Lowe and Garnaut...
Via The Climate Caper 2009, by Garth Paltridge, atmospheric physicist and a former Chief Research Scientist with CSIRO division of Atmospheric Research:
Page 34 "...Perhaps one of the biggest problems with numerical modelling is that it is a gentlemanly activity conducted entirely from one's desk. There is no need to visit the real world to often... ...The fact that the results may have nothing to do with the real world can conveniently be ignored. Other models take the place of observation...
...The high probability attached by the IPCC to its thesis of climate disaster is not the result of careful scientific analysis of theory verses experiment. Basically it derives from a set of people sitting around a table making personal guesses about the quality of the models..."
Looks like the IPCC geussed wrong... oh well, there's always the sun to blame..
.
.
Ah been chaffing at the bit fer the last week odd listening/reading a heck of a lot of heated nonsense. This dumb ol hill farmer me not being paid by the govmint/activists to research 'correct' climate answers aint had time to attend the matter.... soon..
Something i were involved in during the last heat/fire extreme hysteria...
via http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/2833...ebate-252.html
Page 252 #5034:
Re my previous post here's something ah posted in another forum (weatherzone) -
A Leading climate scientist claims that the temps in town X are the highest they've been since records began.
An illiterate points out that that temperatures have actually been warmer in town X many years ago, in fact in the news papers of 150 years ago, temps are mentioned that are much hotter then today.
Scientist says official records only go back 100 years and not to believe the news papers. According to the scientist, the thermometres used to record the temps 150 years ago were just hung up on the back veranda under a hot tin roof and are unreliable as there was not a proper scientific method used.
Illiterate (hmmm, when was roofing tin invented) points out that in town X the roofs of 150 years ago were in fact mainly wood shingle and in many cases there was insulation in the ceilings - it is well recorded and found with 30 seconds of googling.
Scientist continues with tin roof and cheap thermometre under tin roof theory.
Illiterate further notes that the thermometers of 150 years ago were not cheap items just randomly hung up on back veranda's.
Scientist sticks to guns with claims that THE official scientificly aproved method of temperature record in town X only goes back 100 years, and no other reliable records are available for town X.
Illiterate reading the official government records of town X discovers that ther was an official full time employed met man and met station 150 years ago and that he regularly posted his readings to the government gazett record and news papers.
Scientist blathers something about checking the records...
Leading Australian climate 'Scientist' Blair Trewin vs 'illiterate' Flying Binghi discusing temp records for Melbourne Australia.... Who's Blair Trewin ? google is your freind...
.
Ah been chaffing at the bit fer the last week odd listening/reading a heck of a lot of heated nonsense. This dumb ol hill farmer me not being paid by the govmint/activists to research 'correct' climate answers aint had time to attend the matter.... soon..
Something i were involved in during the last heat/fire extreme hysteria...
via http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/2833...ebate-252.html
Page 252 #5034:
Re my previous post here's something ah posted in another forum (weatherzone) -
A Leading climate scientist claims that the temps in town X are the highest they've been since records began.
An illiterate points out that that temperatures have actually been warmer in town X many years ago, in fact in the news papers of 150 years ago, temps are mentioned that are much hotter then today.
Scientist says official records only go back 100 years and not to believe the news papers. According to the scientist, the thermometres used to record the temps 150 years ago were just hung up on the back veranda under a hot tin roof and are unreliable as there was not a proper scientific method used.
Illiterate (hmmm, when was roofing tin invented) points out that in town X the roofs of 150 years ago were in fact mainly wood shingle and in many cases there was insulation in the ceilings - it is well recorded and found with 30 seconds of googling.
Scientist continues with tin roof and cheap thermometre under tin roof theory.
Illiterate further notes that the thermometers of 150 years ago were not cheap items just randomly hung up on back veranda's.
Scientist sticks to guns with claims that THE official scientificly aproved method of temperature record in town X only goes back 100 years, and no other reliable records are available for town X.
Illiterate reading the official government records of town X discovers that ther was an official full time employed met man and met station 150 years ago and that he regularly posted his readings to the government gazett record and news papers.
Scientist blathers something about checking the records...
Leading Australian climate 'Scientist' Blair Trewin vs 'illiterate' Flying Binghi discusing temp records for Melbourne Australia.... Who's Blair Trewin ? google is your freind...
.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another whacko psychotic conspiracy theory rant.
Speak with your doctor about the level of your medication.
Climate Change is good science, backed by 30 years of peer-reviewed research.
Speak with your doctor about the level of your medication.
Climate Change is good science, backed by 30 years of peer-reviewed research.
US/China opposition 'helped delay' EU carbon tax
12 December 2012
Last Updated: 11:55
Europe: International opposition to the EU's proposed carbon emissions tax encouraged member states to oppose the green policy, a Reuters Insight report has found.
In the past, China has threatened to withhold aircraft orders from European plane maker Airbus if the emissions tax went ahead. It's also understood that Indian and Chinese airlines also declined to submit emissions data to Brussels.
According to a senior EU official, the European Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard (pictured), was “under extreme pressure” and the UK, France and Germany were preparing to exclude the aviation industry from the tax. “(Hedegaard) fought very, very hard for a year-long freeze…Barroso backed her,” said the source.
Key European airlines, including Air France, Lufthansa and KLM, are thought to have written to national leaders warning of possible retaliation if the tax went ahead in 2013. Airbus is thought to have been concerned about potential major job losses as two Chinese airlines are alleged to have withheld a large aircraft order due to Beijing's opposition to the law.
In response to the Reuters report, Hedegaard says the delay of the tax was due to positive progress at an ICAO meeting in addressing aircraft emissions, adding that she had the support of the UK, France and Germany for the freeze.
Last month, the European Commission delayed the carbon tax for 12 months. The move means that flights between EU airports and those outside the Union will be exempt from having to pay duty on their carbon emissions until 2014. Airlines that fly within the EU will still have to pay the levy.
Legislators in Washington, DC have passed an act to allow US-based airlines to be exempt from the charge.
12 December 2012
Last Updated: 11:55
Europe: International opposition to the EU's proposed carbon emissions tax encouraged member states to oppose the green policy, a Reuters Insight report has found.
In the past, China has threatened to withhold aircraft orders from European plane maker Airbus if the emissions tax went ahead. It's also understood that Indian and Chinese airlines also declined to submit emissions data to Brussels.
According to a senior EU official, the European Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard (pictured), was “under extreme pressure” and the UK, France and Germany were preparing to exclude the aviation industry from the tax. “(Hedegaard) fought very, very hard for a year-long freeze…Barroso backed her,” said the source.
Key European airlines, including Air France, Lufthansa and KLM, are thought to have written to national leaders warning of possible retaliation if the tax went ahead in 2013. Airbus is thought to have been concerned about potential major job losses as two Chinese airlines are alleged to have withheld a large aircraft order due to Beijing's opposition to the law.
In response to the Reuters report, Hedegaard says the delay of the tax was due to positive progress at an ICAO meeting in addressing aircraft emissions, adding that she had the support of the UK, France and Germany for the freeze.
Last month, the European Commission delayed the carbon tax for 12 months. The move means that flights between EU airports and those outside the Union will be exempt from having to pay duty on their carbon emissions until 2014. Airlines that fly within the EU will still have to pay the levy.
Legislators in Washington, DC have passed an act to allow US-based airlines to be exempt from the charge.
NASA U Turn admits global warming bias on sun's key role
In one of the biggest body blows to climate alarmism comes an astonishing new u-turn from NASA. In essence, the prestigious American space agency has admitted it has been shackled for decades into toeing a political line over man-made global warming so as to play down key solar factors.
don't flame for selective copy and paste... Just too many images to edit out on my phone!
In one of the biggest body blows to climate alarmism comes an astonishing new u-turn from NASA. In essence, the prestigious American space agency has admitted it has been shackled for decades into toeing a political line over man-made global warming so as to play down key solar factors.
don't flame for selective copy and paste... Just too many images to edit out on my phone!
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 10th Jan 2013 at 04:22.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great. A link to a whacko conspiracy-theory web site with an official-sounding name to add a varnish of credibility to the incredible.
Climate change sketics, secret UFO landings, the CIA assassinated JFK etc. There is no shortage intellectually challenged people to fall for their mis-information or even perpetuate paranoid conspiracy theories.
Climate change is good science, backed by thirty years of peer-reviewed research.
Climate change sketics, secret UFO landings, the CIA assassinated JFK etc. There is no shortage intellectually challenged people to fall for their mis-information or even perpetuate paranoid conspiracy theories.
Climate change is good science, backed by thirty years of peer-reviewed research.
Temperature record basic foundation of proof of claims...
.
So, peterc005. With "thirty years of peer reviewed research" to aid him one of Australia's climate scientists Blair Trewinn were completely unaware that there were a government funded climate station in Melbourne that supplied wx reports for the government gazzet and newspapers of the day..
...one wonders what exactly the 'peer' reviewed research were that our tax payer dollars are paying for..
.
via peterc005:
Climate change is good science, backed by thirty years of peer-reviewed research.
Climate change is good science, backed by thirty years of peer-reviewed research.
...one wonders what exactly the 'peer' reviewed research were that our tax payer dollars are paying for...
.
sarc on/
Apparently Oodnadata airport just had a temperature 'record'... i'm looking for the 1850's Oodnadata airport temperature records - anyone know where to find them..
.
sarc on/
Apparently Oodnadata airport just had a temperature 'record'... i'm looking for the 1850's Oodnadata airport temperature records - anyone know where to find them..
.
Thread Starter
Re - "I would pick an uncharacteristically cold period to do it."
How about the last Ice Age.....
Been 'warming' ever since..??
Until the next one that is...
Ho HUM
How about the last Ice Age.....
Been 'warming' ever since..??
Until the next one that is...
Ho HUM
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 10th Jan 2013 at 06:48.