Here it is, AusGamers looks at The Evil Within, and just what you can expect from grandaddy horror creator Shinji Mikami
The Evil Within Review
We chat with Blizzard's Tom Chilton on all things World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor
Talking World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor with Tom Chilton
We take the open-world of fictional Kyrat for a spin.
Far Cry 4 Open-World Hands-On Preview
We take on the Dark Lord and his minions in Monolith's epic action-adventure romp
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor Review
'cainer' suggests: So, "climate change' is propa...
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1829 posts
Cue the al gore indoctrinated white knights of 'global warming', i mean 'climate change', i mean uhh, what do we call it now ?

http://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr

IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific literature

Draft IPCC Ch2 bottom line on extremes: “generally low confidence that there have been discernable changes over the observed record” on lack of trends in extremes, exceptions are trends seen in temperature extremes and regional precipitation (but not floods)
IPCC AR5 Draft: “we have high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence in observed/historical TC records”

On XTCs “unlike in AR4, it is assessed here..there is low confidence of regional changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones”

Bottom line IPCC trop cyclones same as SREX: “low confidence that any reported long term increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust”

More IPCC draft Ch2 on trop cyclones: “current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency”

IPCC on trop cyclones “AR4 assessment needs to be somewhat revised with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends”

IPCC draft Ch2 on drought: “The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts”

More IPCC Ch2: “low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

More IPCC draft report: Ch2: “there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding” except timing of snowmelt


But hey don't take my word for it read it here if you dare


09:43pm 15/12/12 Permalink
system
Internet
--
09:43pm 15/12/12 Permalink
sLaps_Forehead
Brisbane, Queensland
6207 posts
I still want my electric car
09:52pm 15/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7007 posts
Haha no, the report did not say that human driven climate change is now in doubt, in fact here is the summary of the review (and a little background on the conspiracy twat who spread this - anybody could get access to the report) - Man's role in climate change virtually certain.

EVIDENCE for climate change has grown stronger and it is now ''virtually certain'' that human greenhouse gas emissions trap energy that warms the planet, according to a leaked draft of the next major Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
Prepared on behalf of the United Nations every five or six years to summarise climate change research, the panel report draws on hundreds of peer-reviewed papers.


You're just cherry picking little questions about the predictability of side effects and ignoring the overall bleak picture (for some f***ed up reason), tis just another depressing example of how science deniers have absolutely no integrity when spreading lies and cherry picked sentences for claims that vaccines/climate change/fluoride treatment/evolution/etc have suddenly been proven false. Your dishonesty is harmful.
10:20pm 15/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7008 posts
But hey don't take my word for it read it here if you dare

And naturally you didn't take your own smug challenge. From the first page of the summary of the leaked report draft which you linked:

The evidence that formed the basis for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) has further strengthened.
There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the Earth System due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance
10:39pm 15/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1830 posts
peer reviewed papers funded by governments with an agenda seeking outcome more eloquently put here

so they've come up with that awesome conclusion yet the so called effect on weather patterns which is primarily used to drive policy and law - leading to things like 'carbon credits' which i'm paying for as a tax to be paid to banksters, traded on the open market, all based upon an incomplete science.

an incomplete science with what are essentially assumptions on weather patterns, now shown to be false, which have been being purported as facts since the propaganda ramped up with al gore all those years ago used to drive money grabbing by the bankster aligned piss poor governments like what we have in this country.

i've got a problem with that
10:45pm 15/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7009 posts
peer reviewed papers funded by governments with an agenda seeking outcome

Hold on, you just quoted those exact same papers, yet now that you realise they disagree with you, you're calling them an obvious conspiracy? Starting with a pre-decided answer and working backwards much? (like every idjit science denier who spreads these bulls*** cherry picked readings of research publications).

You can have your idiotic speculation of a global level conspiracy amongst hard working and underpaid top academic students for all I care. Just.don't.lie.
10:50pm 15/12/12 Permalink
DecayingCorpse
Brisbane, Queensland
2106 posts
peer reviewed papers funded by governments with an agenda seeking outcome
well, funny how there's no government funded papers looking for evidence against the climate change/c02 emissions position.

because when a government study looks like its heading or headed in the other direction, they are usually always canned because of agendas or in this case leaked.

btw i personally don't give a f*** - just sayin.
10:54pm 15/12/12 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13232 posts
U mad nerf?
10:54pm 15/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1831 posts
maybe you have to reread my first post again. because this (scientific)report also clearly states all this evil co2 was going to cause more droughts floods hurricanes etc. actually doesn't.

facts are facts though australia has signed up to buy 'carbon credits' based on a science which used to say weather patterns are effects and we're all going to die.

did the highly respected researchers employed by the tobacco industry that found that smoking was good for you not have a bias from those who were paying the bills ?

DENIER!

besides, whats a climate credit ?

10:59pm 15/12/12 Permalink
thermite
Brisbane, Queensland
10592 posts
As if the group with 'climate change' in the name would ever admit it's not that big a deal
11:01pm 15/12/12 Permalink
JakeG
Thailand
1146 posts
11:35pm 15/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7010 posts
U mad nerf?

Yes? S*** people who spread blatant and harmful lies about research make me angry.

because this (scientific)report also clearly states all this evil co2 was going to cause more droughts floods hurricanes etc. actually doesn't.

Holy s***, you're really going to do this? Just straight up deny that the report which you linked said that human driven climate change is more well evidenced than ever before in history? Because you can cherry pick some plausible side effects which they honestly admit are not within their realm of predictions?

Why on Earth do you trust half the report and not the other, are you a schizophrenic?

facts are facts though australia has signed up to buy 'carbon credits' based on a science which used to say weather patterns are effects and we're all going to die.

More and more some people are demonstrating that free speech is overrated and unpragmatic, because some people do not have the intelligence to handle it, and then we get loudly stated non-truths like these regular threads. The stupid in this thread, from the same regular people, makes me sad.
11:37pm 15/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9670 posts
I TOLD YOU SO

Im too smashed to post now so tomorrow i will explain the Cosmic Rays Theory.

What I found interesting from what Ive read so far is The IPCC now claims that Man is responsible for only 50% of the warming.
That is considerably less that the AR4 claim that man was responsible for almost all of the warming.

Also, the idea of Weather Events being linked to AGW has been found to have little or no scientific basis.
This alone is going to splinter AGW fanatics.

What do you think Nerfy ?
Is AGW influencing Weather ?
Please post examples.

11:39pm 15/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1832 posts
i cant believe we have to pay a carbon tax on s*** which in the long run, is going up year on year, we're in a honeymoon period remember to stop something which isn't happening anyway. seems a bit strange to me.
11:42pm 15/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9671 posts
IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific literature

IPCC AR5 Draft: “we have high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence in observed/historical TC records”

Draft IPCC Ch2 bottom line on extremes: “generally low confidence that there have been discernable changes over the observed record”
on lack of trends in extremes, exceptions are trends seen in temperature extremes and regional precipitation (but not floods)

On XTCs “unlike in AR4, it is assessed here..there is low confidence of regional changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones”

Bottom line IPCC trop cyclones same as SREX: “low confidence that any reported long term increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust”

More IPCC draft Ch2 on trop cyclones: “current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency”

IPCC on trop cyclones “AR4 assessment needs to be somewhat revised with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends”

IPCC draft Ch2 on drought: “The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts”

More IPCC Ch2: “low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

More IPCC draft report: Ch2: “there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding” except timing of snowmelt

http://climatedepot.com/a/18800/Prof-Pielke-Jr-Analysis-of-UN-IPCC-Draft-report--IPCC-shows-almost-complete-reversal-from-AR4-on-trends-in-drought-hurricanes-floods

11:46pm 15/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7011 posts
The stupid... burns... so... much....

http://i.imgur.com/51YcI.jpg

Schizophrenic inconsistency between the report results being reliable and the report results being a conspiracy depending on which sentence it is, accepting cherry picked words (about what scientists have described as the predictability of various processes affected by climate change, not about whether climate change is happening) based on what you want to hear, and yet rejecting the rest which you do not.

You cannot take some as reliable and yet ignore the rest of the picture which even gave those results context. You are saying "The results prove that the results are unproven."
12:09am 16/12/12 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
21950 posts
Why is it that people don't fall for just one conspiracy theory, it's that they always fall for them all? Like every single one. I don't think I have ever met someone/seen someone on the internets who just believes in chemtrails, or just believes in vaccines being some government plot, or that just climate change is false etc. It's always that they fall for every single one.

Is it sort of like religion how to believe one lie you have to believe another and another otherwise the first lie doesn't make sense? Or is it just their simple psychological need of wanting to believe they are smart enough to see some phantom orchestration behind events expanding in to every level of their thinking? I think it is the latter.

Cue the extreme brains trust of cainer and faceman saying "how come you don't address the content in my post man is it too much for you? http://i.imgur.com/FIfx9.png" It's because it is the same bulls***, following the same pattern, posted by the same kind of retard on just about every internet forum on the internet. It is really tiring. It is more fun to just sit back and watch the naturalnews links get posted as you jerk each other off about your lack of evidence and non-existent hidden agendas. The good thing about SA is that on the rare occasion someone posts this sort of nonsense they are usually instantly banned, because it has been long established that the content is worthless.
12:15am 16/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1833 posts
explain why we have to pay a carbon tax then?
what was its supporting evidence that lead to its introduction?

i'm really curious as to what this will achieve?

personally i could care less about any reports contents for or against global warming/death to us all. what i care about is using a lie to introduce a tax that makes someone else overseas rich.

12:19am 16/12/12 Permalink
DeadlyDav0
Brisbane, Queensland
3250 posts
Good post fpot, made me lol.

Also, GF has this female friend. This female friend is f*****g this tradie guy, 29yrs old he is. He thinks climate change is all a big ass conspiracy n total BS. Also thinks 9/11 was masterminded by the US government.
12:39am 16/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7012 posts
explain why we have to pay a carbon tax then?

Because making carbon products more expensive than non-carbon products drives the market towards non-carbon solutions, ensuring that the market feels the real pressure now (and thus has reason to innovate now) rather than feeling it later, when it would be too late. It's called long term planning, most humans suck at it.

what was its supporting evidence that lead to its introduction?

Reading the report that you linked would be a start if you actually care about trying to understand, but don't expect to catch up to say a doctor in their ability without going to med school. The reliability of those who are behind these studies is well known, demonstrated thousands of times over.
12:41am 16/12/12 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
21951 posts
01:06am 16/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7014 posts
^
So why would the latest IPCC report contradict these studies when its purpose is to summarize the latest and greatest scientific research? The answer is simple — it doesn't. Rawls has completely misrepresented the IPCC report.


I hope that the mods will consider having the thread title be updated to something accurate and/or remotely honest.
01:23am 16/12/12 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19348 posts
we need to pay more tax....

please find more reasons
02:41am 16/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7016 posts
we need to pay more tax....

please find more reasons

How would you propose fixing this problem? What is more intelligent than getting the market to start solving this now when it's cheaper and easier, rather than later?
03:28am 16/12/12 Permalink
HurricaneJim
Brisbane, Queensland
1283 posts
Flat Earth F***wits....glad I won't be around..
03:38am 16/12/12 Permalink
carson
Gippsland, Victoria
1696 posts
People believe this s*** because they want to feel like they're the enlightened ones. Makes them feel special. There was a good psychological report about it. It's an us vs them mentality.

Also Jim, I love your gif in your sig. Where is it from?!
06:51am 16/12/12 Permalink
loutl
Brisbane, Queensland
289 posts
fpot, because you simply like to reinforce your own biases and stereotypes? I don't believe that "chemtrails" are some mass drugging conspiracy, don't think "vaccines" (in quotes because it's a noun and your use of it in that form proves my point from the vaccine thread) are some government plot, have always accepted that increased GHG concentrations will increase the surface temperature in a no-feedback scenario.

But it's far easier for you and Nerf to immediately lump everyone that doesn't simply swallow everything that activist websites like skepticalscience or brainded press-release reposters like 99% of the mainstream media report as certifiable loons.

07:27am 16/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7017 posts
Oh loutl, we've already been through the many times that you vehemently insisted that climate science is a global conspiracy, last time that you tried to re-write history: http://www.ausgamers.com/forums/general/thread.php/3225441?p=3#post3226838

Add 'massive liar' to the list of depressing traits noted in these people.

---

fpot, regarding your question before. This study, The Motivated Rejection of Science, was actually just posted to the Internets elsewhere, extremely relevant -

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ~ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.
07:37am 16/12/12 Permalink
loutl
Brisbane, Queensland
290 posts
Nerf, do you ever actually read what others write?

For instance, in my post just now, have I made any claim at all about climate science?
07:45am 16/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7018 posts
You called it "a bias and a stereotype" to associate conspiracy theorists with people who deny climate science. You are a conspiracy theorist, please stfu.
07:52am 16/12/12 Permalink
loutl
Brisbane, Queensland
291 posts
No I didn't. Nerf, I know you're pretty stupid, but not so stupid as to accidentally misinterpret what I actually said just now in response to fpot's claim that all people that believe in one conspiracy theory believe in them all. You're just being a lying, manipulative piece of s*** as usual. 8)
08:05am 16/12/12 Permalink
Ha
34 posts
jesus said we shall have dominion over all other species i assume that includes the ozone layer or w/e. the bible basically says that we're a-ok, and it's better than any 'peer reviewed' 'science'.
08:34am 16/12/12 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
21953 posts
That actually looks like a pretty interesting read nerf. Would be nice to hear some explanation on what causes the mindset behind some of the white-noise drivel posted around these parts. Cheers.
10:01am 16/12/12 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13192 posts

Why is it that people don't fall for just one conspiracy theory, it's that they always fall for them all? Like every single one. I don't think I have ever met someone/seen someone on the internets who just believes in chemtrails, or just believes in vaccines being some government plot, or that just climate change is false etc. It's always that they fall for every single one.


Ever notice that chronic conspiracy theorists also tend to be chronic cannabis users? Just saying.

Also lol at OP failure to read his own report.
10:02am 16/12/12 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
21954 posts
Ever notice that chronic conspiracy theorists also tend to be chronic cannabis users?
Yeah about that...
10:03am 16/12/12 Permalink
loutl
Brisbane, Queensland
292 posts
If you find the article interesting fpot, be sure to read all about it at climateaudit.org. The entire back story is pretty fun if you're in to that sort of stuff.
10:18am 16/12/12 Permalink
Herron
Brisbane, Queensland
162 posts
Regardless of changes in temperature, wouldn't it better to live in a clean(er) environment that doesn't rely on finite resources - that will get more expensive as they become harder to source?

The only negative I can see coming from climate change naysayers is that you have to pay more for cleaner energy and products. That dirty energy is getting bloody expensive already.

Just because you don't believe in the reason for change it doesn't mean the change is a good one.
10:30am 16/12/12 Permalink
stinky
USA
3745 posts
so they've come up with that awesome conclusion yet the so called effect on weather patterns which is primarily used to drive policy and law - leading to things like 'carbon credits' which i'm paying for as a tax to be paid to banksters, traded on the open market, all based upon an incomplete science.


Gravity is an incomplete science ... so you should jump off a bridge and float away.
10:41am 16/12/12 Permalink
thermite
Brisbane, Queensland
10593 posts
No, Herron I'd rather know the truth. Overstated arguments are not helpful. We have laws and taxes based on this, we have people's lives affected economically all based on this faith.
10:46am 16/12/12 Permalink
l3wd_5c0ff
Brisbane, Queensland
2393 posts
bunch of mad cainers :(
11:14am 16/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1834 posts
the fluoride in the water is having the right effect.

yes mr government please, take my money, pick winners, make youre bankster friends rich, bend me over ill take some more please


all hail gillard and co right ?

like the great idea of paying solar subsidies and cents for kw back into the grid. now the price of solar has come down so much exponentially year on year like it was forecast, the power companies have GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY to spend up on infrastructure so the rest of us are OBLIGATED to pay them even more money to make up for the lost customers the government facilitated.

a great example of the government choosing a side and f*****g it all up. the people who can least afford it get d***ed again. now they're going to give us back some more 'free' money $250 a year on your power bill which has doubled in the last 3. onya labor.

there is a market mechanism for everything unless its tampered with by the government. fossil fuels included. youre already seeing markets independently develop fully electric cars and mainstream ones at that like the nissan leaf.

Herron
but wouldnt you rather just have a cleaner world for the sake of it peace love mungbeans acid mushys man - nimbin

Herron - if you hadn't understood exactly what a carbon trading scheme is, it is you get to pay money, to someone who has created a carbon 'credit', on the open market, for an excuse to pollute the same. you're not saving the world. you're making someone rich. all industry that doesn't want to partake in this scheme/scam will just up and leave australia and continue polluting on their merry way in china or africa. they wont say no to another manufacturing plant on their soil. after china it will be africa. the total pollution is the same if not worse. but youre the type to drive a prius with youre head held high coz 'what are you doing the save the world herrrrrrrrrrrrr'

11:31am 16/12/12 Permalink
stinky
USA
3746 posts
The water, the tide, it comes in and it goes out. It always goes in, then it goes out... You can’t explain that. You can’t explain it.
12:22pm 16/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9672 posts
Regardless of changes in temperature, wouldn't it better to live in a clean(er) environment that doesn't rely on finite resources - that will get more expensive as they become harder to source?


Wouldnt it be good if Families could afford to pay their power bills ?
In South Australia Electricity disconnections are up 30% on last year.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/15513562/power-and-gas-disconnections-up-sharply/

In Victoria they are up 33%.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/big-jump-in-people-whose-energy-is-cut-off/story-e6frfku9-1226534026567

Renewable Energy isnt ready, it may not be ready for at least another 10-20 or more years.
Currently Australia has just under 10% of renewable energy.
Of that 10% around 66% is Hydro. Dams arent popular so no more Hydro.
So we need to grow the tiny 3% of current Green Electricity sources a further 10%

To get to 20% renewables by 2020 our power bills are going to have triple or more.
Do you think that is affordable ?

If the majority of the Planet arent doing it do you think its fair that Australian Families should be paying taxes and levies on Electricity alone ?

Maybe you believe Co2 0.038% of the Atmosphere controls the heating of the other 99.9% of the Atmosphere, but do you believe in the solution ?
Is the solution realisticly affordable ?


Estimated percentage contribution of each technology to renewable generation
Source: Clean Energy Council Renewable Energy Database, ABARE 2011, REC Registry, AEMO, IMO, IES. Due to rounding figures may not add up to 100%"

"Hydro electricity accounted for more than two thirds of the renewable energy generated in the 12 months to October 2011."

Hydro: 67.2%
Wind: 21.9%
Bio-energy: 8.5%
PV:2.3%
Solar Thermal: 0.015%
Geo-Thermal: 0.002%
Marine Energy: 0.003%

The above is the total from renewable generation to Oct. 2011 only, and not from the total energy generation within Australia - Clean energy australia report 2011.

The Critical Decade: Generating A Renewable Australia


last edited by FaceMan at 12:31:56 16/Dec/12
12:26pm 16/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1835 posts
the whole argument is a straw man.

the latest scientific research states clearly that global warming, heating, cooling, whatever has a very very low probability to cause what apparently was going to happen if the worlds temperature went up.

it hasn't happened.

global warming =/= droughts/floods/hurricanes/cyclones

droughts/floods/hurricanes/cyclones due to global warming = carbon tax

does not compute

12:39pm 16/12/12 Permalink
deadlyf
Queensland
2883 posts
The water, the tide, it comes in and it goes out. It always goes in, then it goes out... You can’t explain that. You can’t explain it.
This is a stupid statement.

Everyone knows that God does that, read a book sometime and educate yourself.
01:01pm 16/12/12 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19349 posts
the government could never get it wrong could they? they did a report so we should just shutup and pay more tax.

this climate change scam is bulletproof for the socialists. the climate change crusade reminds me a lot of religion. how can you prove that something you can't see doesn't exist?
01:03pm 16/12/12 Permalink
WirlWind
Central Coast, New South Wales
434 posts
I'm staying out of this one, have a hard enough time dealing with my devout Christian extended family trying to come to grips with me being an Atheist.

But I will poke my head in quickly and then facepalm.


*SONIC FACEPALM*


Well, good luck, guys. I'm out.
01:53pm 16/12/12 Permalink
copuis
Brisbane, Queensland
3518 posts
came here to see why this was still going

saw sonic facepalm,

leave having learnt something cool

I feel enriched and informed now
02:29pm 16/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9673 posts
The Cosmic Rays Theory which The IPCC has decided is not worthy of mentioning.

The mechanism that Svensmark proposed was relatively straightforward. Heavy cosmic rays – muons – are a key factor in the nucleation of low clouds because they are more likely to penetrate further into the atmosphere. During periods of intense solar activity, the solar wind pushes these particles away from Earth, inhibiting low cloud formation, leading to lower terrestrial albedo (reflectivity) and, therefore, greater warming.

During periods of low solar activity, however, the solar wind is less intense, meaning that more cosmic rays impact the atmosphere, leading to higher rates of low cloud formation, resulting in a higher albedo, and therefore a cooler planet


Below is from the guy that leaked the report.
He is upset that the entire research on the Cosmic Rays Theory was cut from the AR5 down to one sentence and dismissed.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/

04:11pm 16/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1836 posts
he self evident problem here, is the majority herd have invested so much time and effort into just accepting that they're right that when glaring evidence, like total discounting of the big firey thing in the sky has nothing to do with warming and cooling cycles all throughout earths history and blame an evil gas.

the ipcc report even says the dire effects propagandised as facts, aren't true.

the ipcc report 'leaker' has the s**** coz they have totally omitted the single biggest driver in the temperature warming, discounted it as irrelevant and use the human caused emissions as the sole driver even though their own data can't be used to correlate it.

This is in glaring contrast to solar activity, which lights up like a neon sign in the raw data. Literally dozens of studies finding .5 to .8 degrees of correlation with temperature. So how is it that the IPCC’s current generation of general circulation models start with the assumption that CO2 has done 40 times as much to warm the planet as solar activity since 1750? This is the ratio of AR5′s radiative forcing estimates for variation in CO2 and variation in total solar effects between 1750 and 2010, as listed in [the table of RF estimates in the chapter on human and natural temperature forcing factors]. RF for CO2 is entered as ___ W/m^2 while RF for total solar effects is entered as ___ W/m^2. [I'm not going to quote the actual numbers, but yeah, the ratio is an astounding 40 to 1, up from 14 to 1 in AR4, which listed total solar forcing as 0.12 W/m^2, vs. 1.66 for CO2.]


o the 50% driver of global temperature according to mountains of temperature correlation data is assumed to have 1/40th the warming effect of something whose warming effect is not even discernable in the temperature record. This is on the input side of the GCM’s. The models aren’t using gigaflops of computing power to find that CO2 has that much larger a warming effect. The warming ratio is fixed at the outset. Garbage in, garbage out.


The “how” is very simple. The 40 times greater warming effect of CO2 is achieved by blatant omitted variable fraud. As I will fully document, all of the evidence for a strong solar magnetic driver of climate is simply left out of AR5.




05:11pm 16/12/12 Permalink
Mordecai
Victoria
1491 posts
People believe this s*** because they want to feel like they're the enlightened ones. Makes them feel special. There was a good psychological report about it. It's an us vs them mentality. Also Jim, I love your gif in your sig. Where is it from?!

I was shopping the other day and some old guy was getting upset about the world ending on the 21st.

"It's planet X, it's putting out gamma rays which will destroy us. It's been on the internet the last ten years why haven't scientists done anything to fix it"

I really really wanted to comment and say how stupid he sounded.
05:20pm 16/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7020 posts
like total discounting of the big firey thing in the sky has nothing to do with warming and cooling cycles all throughout earths history and blame an evil gas.


"People aren't responding to my uneducated mistranslations of scientific reports, gosh darn they're being so stupid."

Have you got it through your head yet that the very report which you are quoting as the credible source for your claims, says the exact opposite to what you are saying about the larger analysis of climate change? How on Earth do you just brush that aside and keep ranting saying "See - I have a source!" ?

and Jesus Christ at loutl, "I insist on conspiracies in every other thread - hey how dare you label me as a conspiracy theorist."
05:43pm 16/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1837 posts
i think you're in denial nerf
05:47pm 16/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7021 posts
i think you're in denial nerf

You have been insisting that the report argues a case which I have provided hard evidence that it doesn't, and your response is to call that "denial"... The f*** is wrong with you man? Here, I even screenshotted the first page for you:

http://i.imgur.com/hOV5T.png

It would almost be morbidly fascinating watching your strange continuous denial about the report which you linked, except that this is not an unimportant topic, and your misinformation is harmful.
06:14pm 16/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1838 posts
why are you quoting AR4 ?

stop frothing at the mouth dude...
06:25pm 16/12/12 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13233 posts
he self evident problem here, is the majority herd have invested so much time and effort into just accepting that they're right that when glaring evidence, like total discounting of the big firey thing in the sky has nothing to do with warming and cooling cycles all throughout earths history and blame an evil gas.

Well, they're not ignoring the thing in the sky, given the mechanism of global warming is heat from the sun being trapped? See this picture:

http://envis.tropmet.res.in/kidscorner/KidsCornerImg/greenhouse/GreenhouseEffect.jpg
My understanding is that cyclical solar events are part of the models used in AGW theories? You're going to need to be more specific about your claims.
06:44pm 16/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7022 posts
why are you quoting AR4 ?

stop frothing at the mouth dude...

Oh my f***.

That is from the first page of the report which you linked which you have been insisting argued against the findings of AR4, which you dared other people to read... You still haven't even read the first page haven't you?

Are you trolling, or are you really this bad and yet this confident?
06:52pm 16/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1839 posts
i think this dude puts it quite clearly
For the 1750-2010 period examined, two variables correlate strongly with the observed warming (and hence with each other). Solar magnetic activity and atmospheric CO2 were both trending upwards over the period, and both stepped up to much higher levels over the second half of the 20th century. These two correlations with temperature change give rise to the two main competing theories of 20th century warming. Was it driven by rapidly increasing human release of CO2, or by the 80 year “grand maximum” of solar activity that began in the early 1920′s? (“Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints,” Usoskin et al. 2007.)

The empirical evidence in favor of the solar explanation is overwhelming. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have found a very high degree of correlation (.5 to .8) between solar-magnetic activity and global temperature going back many thousands of years (Bond 2001, Neff 2001, Shaviv 2003, Usoskin 2005, and many others listed below). In other words, solar activity “explains,” in the statistical sense, 50 to 80% of past temperature change.


Usoskin et. al. 2005, “Solar Activity Over the Last 1150 years: does it Correlate with Climate?” Proc. 13th Cool Stars Workshop. Excerpt from Usoskin: “The long term trends in solar data and in northern hemisphere temperatures have a correlation coefficient of about 0.7 — .8 at a 94% — 98% confidence level.


What do the AR5 draft authors do with the overwhelming evidence that there is SOME mechanism at work that makes solar magnetic the primary driver of global temperature? They don’t like the particular theories offered, but they have to still acknowledge that SOME such mechanism must be at work, don’t they? But readers don’t know about that evidence. It was skipped over via that one sentence of oblique references to a few papers that made unidentified findings, allowing AR5 to continue as if the evidence doesn’t exist. They never mention it again. They never account it in any way. It is GONE from AR5. The authors declare their dissatisfaction with the available theories for how solar activity might drive climate, and use this as an excuse to completely ignore the massive evidence that there is some such mechanism at work.


quite simply, the sun causing the heating doesn't suit the narrative, therefore its omitted.

bulls*** in = bulls*** out

07:00pm 16/12/12 Permalink
redhat
Sydney, New South Wales
858 posts
this climate change scam is bulletproof for the socialists.


FYI socialists don't want the carbon tax either as it's a neoliberal market based solution.

Not sure why the government is sitting on it's hands on this one.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/how-to-be-fully-renewable-in-10-years-20100812-121l0.html

07:07pm 16/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1840 posts
come on nerf, i think you've been arguing your point, frothy mouth and all from the wrong report altogether you silly turkey

read the right one would you
07:09pm 16/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7024 posts
all from the wrong report

I've told you three times now that that is from the first page of the report which you're citing.

So that's it? Straight back to your naive unprofessional pseudo-science being presented as fact, and you just ignore that once again you were shown to be enormously inconsistent?

Can you explain what was going on upstairs? Did things just blank out and you don't even remember reading my answer to your question?
07:09pm 16/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1841 posts
point out where i'm wrong tiger :)
07:11pm 16/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7025 posts
Do you understand that the report which you linked, which you used as your credible source for claiming that there is credible reason to doubt climate change, concluded that there is more reason than ever to consider the predictions of human carbon emissions accurate and worrying?

You are telling us to take this report as reliable because it reinforces some point that you want to make - so we did - and this is what it says:

http://i.imgur.com/hOV5T.png

So we took up your dare to read your report. It says that human driven climate change is a more credible and more worrying concern than before.
07:17pm 16/12/12 Permalink
koopz
Brisbane, Queensland
9793 posts
like the great idea of paying solar subsidies and cents for kw back into the grid. now the price of solar has come down so much exponentially year on year like it was forecast, the power companies have GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY to spend up on infrastructure so the rest of us are OBLIGATED to pay them even more money to make up for the lost customers the government facilitated.



great comment... will read again, and again, and again.


dude we all know this - we've seen it coming for a very long time.


I'm more interested in how to import cost effective electric cars instead of modding them locally with the same ol spin...


k - go!


07:23pm 16/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1842 posts
nerf nerf nerf nerf, you lack the ability to think critically.

just because they editors of the report decided to purposely gloss over the main contributor to global temperature fluctuations declaring it irrelevant in spite of science which says otherwise...

many times..

doesn't mean it true

you can hardly justify a carbon tax when its the sun all along.

a sun tax on the other hand

go get edumicated nerf

last edited by cainer at 19:28:17 16/Dec/12
07:26pm 16/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7026 posts
You're trolling.

Your entire first post is based upon the assumption that that report is trustworthy, then you schizophrenically decide that it's not trustworthy without redacting your previous positions based on the assumption of the report being trustworthy..

"Trust this report, it's written by f*****g scientists!"
"But don't trust this report, it's written by filthy scientists! And goes against what I said before."

It's the exact same report dumbass, you can't have it both ways using it as a reliable source and calling it an unreliable source.
07:31pm 16/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1843 posts
come on now nerf, thats not true.

the first post shows that the climate change so far =/= the propaganda on what will happen, hurricanes, cyclones, floods, droughts etc, which is the justification for the carbon tax.

later on the rebuttals by one of the peer reviewers, the guy who leaked the report is because they've done what you're doing. sticking your head in the sand and not acknowledging that its not carbon that has the highest correlation toward climate heating and cooling but in fact the sun. omitted science. doesn't suit the narrative.

an inconvenient truth as some would say


the effects of climate change = justification for carbon trading scheme world wide.

climate change = caused by the sun

a tax for something that isn't justifiable is the end result.

which bit doesn't make sense to you ?
07:41pm 16/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7027 posts
I give up, most hopeless Internet discussion of my life, and there's been a lot with your type.

http://i.imgur.com/7zC4y.jpg
07:50pm 16/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1844 posts
your meme sux

mines better

http://i.qkme.me/3s7pkd.jpg
07:56pm 16/12/12 Permalink
WirlWind
Central Coast, New South Wales
436 posts
I give up, most hopeless Internet discussion of my life, and there's been a lot with your type.


And now you know why I stopped bothering.

Now, I just lurk and silently facepalm inside my cabin.
07:59pm 16/12/12 Permalink
stinky
USA
3747 posts
For the 1750-2010 period examined, two variables correlate strongly with the observed warming (and hence with each other). Solar magnetic activity and atmospheric CO2 were both trending upwards over the period, and both stepped up to much higher levels over the second half of the 20th century. These two correlations with temperature change give rise to the two main competing theories of 20th century warming. Was it driven by rapidly increasing human release of CO2, or by the 80 year “grand maximum” of solar activity that began in the early 1920′s? (“Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints,” Usoskin et al. 2007.)


Did you ever stop to think that maybe it's our greenhouse gasses that are causing the increase in solar magnetic activity? The sun is just as much part of our upper atmosphere as ozone layer and the clouds.
06:04am 17/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7033 posts
I wouldn't hold your breath, he's been told 5 times now that the quote was from the first page of the report which he dared people to read, and still keeps dismissing it as from a different report. Dude's aiming for a new highscore in fail.
06:52am 17/12/12 Permalink
XaltD
Queensland
1158 posts
cainer; from every post you have made, all you care about is the climate tax thing you're paying?

08:13am 17/12/12 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
21955 posts
nerf nerf nerf nerf, you lack the ability to think critically.
Irony of the century.
08:58am 17/12/12 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13196 posts
Climate change may or may not be man-made. Cainer, you can probably agree that throwing all the s*** into the atmosphere that we do most likely isn't helping the situation.
So we are taxed on carbon emission, it aims to help clear up some of the crap we throw into the sky how is that a bad thing really?

Did you protest this much when your mum forced you to clean your room?
09:51am 17/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1846 posts
Did you ever stop to think that maybe it's our greenhouse gasses that are causing the increase in solar magnetic activity? The sun is just as much part of our upper atmosphere as ozone layer and the clouds.

is that the new lie to be sprouted out now in defence of this ? co2 on earth effects the suns solar output. hahah nice.

cainer; from every post you have made, all you care about is the climate tax thing you're paying?

the only reason there is so much attention on 'climate change' is to introduce this tax around the world. so yes i have a problem with a science that goes out of its way via 'international collaborations' to ignore the main driver of causation in pursuit of making bankers rich.

Climate change may or may not be man-made. Cainer, you can probably agree that throwing all the s*** into the atmosphere that we do most likely isn't helping the situation. So we are taxed on carbon emission, it aims to help clear up some of the crap we throw into the sky how is that a bad thing really?


i shall post a previous quote where i dealt with this untruth with some serious fact. it was mind blowing if you actually read it.

Herron - if you hadn't understood exactly what a carbon trading scheme is, it is you get to pay money, to someone who has created a carbon 'credit', on the open market, for an excuse to pollute the same. you're not saving the world. you're making someone rich. all industry that doesn't want to partake in this scheme/scam will just up and leave australia and continue polluting on their merry way in china or africa. they wont say no to another manufacturing plant on their soil. after china it will be africa. the total pollution is the same if not worse. but youre the type to drive a prius with youre head held high coz 'what are you doing the save the world herrrrrrrrrrrrr'


last edited by cainer at 11:55:29 17/Dec/12
11:54am 17/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1847 posts
besides you turkeys, if you had actually read anything except for jumping on a bandwagon.

i dont care what is causing the atmosphere to heat up or cool down <- i dont care.

i care that now even the turkeys who made the report have through gritting teeth, admitted that the following

there is low confidence of regional changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones
The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts
low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale


and the crux of the whole issue? the above statements in years gone by have been the TOTAL JUSTIFICATION as to why we have to sign up to a carbon trading scheme.

or did everyones fluoride filled brains just filter out the ability smell bulls*** when a steaming hot pile of it is served for your breakfast, lunch and dinner ?

12:04pm 17/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9674 posts

125 eminent Scientists that can no longer accept the bulls*** coming from the The UN and its IPCC.

We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.

The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.

The “even larger climate shocks” you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.


http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/





01:27pm 17/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1848 posts
obviously theyre all nutcases.

02:03pm 17/12/12 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13198 posts

i shall post a previous quote where i dealt with this untruth with some serious fact. it was mind blowing if you actually read it.

Herron - if you hadn't understood exactly what a carbon trading scheme is, it is you get to pay money, to someone who has created a carbon 'credit', on the open market, for an excuse to pollute the same. you're not saving the world. you're making someone rich. all industry that doesn't want to partake in this scheme/scam will just up and leave australia and continue polluting on their merry way in china or africa. they wont say no to another manufacturing plant on their soil. after china it will be africa. the total pollution is the same if not worse. but youre the type to drive a prius with youre head held high coz 'what are you doing the save the world herrrrrrrrrrrrr'


The carbon credit is made through creating carbon negative industry, planting trees or something to act as a carbon sink, it also comes from industries who have managed to reduce their carbon usage below what was allocated to them thus giving them credits to trade. The net effect is that it is expected carbon output is reduced. Industry is encouraged to be more efficient so they can capitalize on the credits they have. You know though it is just about making someone rich (through the reduction of carbon emissions..). edit: Making people rich through reducing carbon is in fact a large part of the mechanism in a capitalism based society.

The bottom line is industry is encouraged to produce cleaner emissions which can only be a good thing for the environment.

Also the argument of shipping industry offshore to places like China because of the carbon tax is stupid, as our electrical generators for instance cannot do that. Not only that, China is not the corrupt pollution powerhouse that people think it is, they are also introducing carbon tax type policies and are doing a big focus in cleaning up their industry.

But you know, Herp derp and all that.

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 14:14:46 17/Dec/12
02:12pm 17/12/12 Permalink
thermite
Brisbane, Queensland
10595 posts
Science background or not, most people are too gutless to stand up and say they see things differently when everyone around them has the same fake/wrong view. THAT is easily provable with experiments and candid camera pranks. We know human beings are horribly fallible like this, and the human factor is always the weakness in science.
Notice that there are plenty of independent scientists willing to come out against the IPCC, but no government-approved organisation run by weak minded lackies who wouldn't dare to put their paycheck in jeopardy would have the balls to support them.
As far as the politics goes, it isn't science that drives government policy, it is the voters. We have a lot of retarded policies thanks to the mass stupidity, what are the odds that this one particular hysteria would pan out to be legit?
02:19pm 17/12/12 Permalink
demon
Brisbane, Queensland
7023 posts
So we are taxed on carbon emission, it aims to help clear up some of the crap we throw into the sky how is that a bad thing really?

taxation clears crap from the atmosphere!? how does it do that?

ftr i agree with climate science in the way i agree with most science i have no desire to personally verify... i go with the view of the majority of the scientific community, but keep it in mind that they may yet be wrong. i highly doubt that taxation will even reduce the rate of growth of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. population & industry are expanding... therefore carbon emissions will rise.
02:24pm 17/12/12 Permalink
orbitor
Brisbane, Queensland
8927 posts
come on nerf, i think you've been arguing your point, frothy mouth and all from the wrong report altogether you silly turkey

read the right one would you


his coloured quote is from the leaked AR5....that you posted.
02:48pm 17/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1849 posts
The bottom line is industry is encouraged to produce cleaner emissions which can only be a good thing for the environment.

should be read

"industry is encouraged to offshore any last shred if manufacturing or value adding to raw materials because the taxes imposed here aren't elsewhere so it's good for our environment because we're rich and those poor c**** who want any industry will have a f***ed up one"

in which case we should rename our country to 'Jack' and drive around in prius's in a massive cloud of smug emanating over our country.

i dont disagree that it would be nicer to have a clean country/world instead of a dirty one but i'm not ignorant that exporting our pollution means we have the moral upper hand, quite the opposite, its a c*** act of a thing to do.

and for me, if we do have a 'carbon tax'(read pollution tax) it shouldn't be going to pay banksters. if anything it should be going to subsidize new 'green' technology like cheaper solar panels, hydro plants, geothermal power, algae based biofuel, etcetera.

making some banker in london rich because he owns rights over a plot of rainforrest carbon credits in some 3rd world country is just another way the banksters have found to be a leech on a prouctive country sucking the cash out for their own greedy gains. the fact that the stroke of a pen can turn a rainforrest into any number of carbon 'credits' is a f*****g joke. the jokes on you if you think it makes sense.

last edited by cainer at 14:53:01 17/Dec/12
02:51pm 17/12/12 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13199 posts

"industry is encouraged to offshore any last shred if manufacturing or value adding to raw materials because the taxes imposed here aren't elsewhere so it's good for our environment because we're rich and those poor c**** who want any industry will have a f***ed up one"


The taxes are elsewhere and also getting introduced, ie China. Also shifting industry offshore is extremely capital intensive, requiring vast amounts of upfront cash/loans and the cost savings from dodging a carbon tax probably wouldn't cover that at all. If an industry was going offshore, the labor costs would probably be the carrot.

However, you seem to see everything as black/white and overly simplistic, which is a shame.

For instance, with an industry looking to shave some costs off its carbon emission (you know only 300 companies are actually directly affected by it?) might you expect them to purchase some new technology by an upstart that can reduce their emissions and save them money overall? So in effect these 'green' technologies are being subsided by the carbon tax by creating a market niche for them?
03:05pm 17/12/12 Permalink
Scooter
Brisbane, Queensland
6131 posts
might you expect them to purchase some new technology by an upstart that can reduce their emissions and save them money overall?


Teys brothers just shut down for 3 weeks so they came in under the levels required to avoid the tax.. They're the kind of company that will probably look into doing something like Toll mentioned, those on the cusp of the tax. Which means it's working, I guess.

Still just a glorified Robin Hood Tax at the moment though.
03:26pm 17/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9676 posts
I think the Science is rubbish.

But If I believed it, i would be horrified by the attempts made to lower Co2.
Its just pointless.
China is not doing Carbon Taxes like us, they are doing very tiny schemes that are more about selling Green Junk to the West than anything to do to lower Co2 Emissions. China also refers to Carbon Intensity rather than Carbon Emssions.
China also refuses to allow independent audits so its meaningless.

The World Bank was in the news before Doha claiming that the World urgently needed Carbon Taxes yet it is actively funding one of the World largest Coal Power Stations in South Africa and in other 3rd World Countries.

It's enough to give you whiplash. Last month, the World Bank put out a devastating new report on why 4 degrees Celsius of global warming "simply must not be allowed to occur." This month, the Bank is considering whether to provide financing for a new coal-fired power plant in Mongolia

The World Bank has been criticized before for continuing to fund coal plants. The World Resources Institute issued a report a few weeks ago about coal plants that are currently proposed or under construction, and it notes that the World Bank "has actually increased lending for fossil fuel projects and coal plants in recent years." That includes $5.3 billion in funding for 29 new or expanding coal plants, as reporter Dave Levitan pointed out. And just last year, the bank's own internal inspector criticized it for not adequately evaluating carbon emissions before granting a $3.75 billion loan for a coal plant in South Africa.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/worldbank-climate-change

03:58pm 17/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1850 posts
whats that old saying ? action speak louder then words.

toll, if think that marginal industries, like steel making, petroleum refinings, aviation etc will invest in new and exciting technologies in response to being taxed like nowhere else in the world you're living in an academic dream world.

you want to know why Qantas is domiciling more and more aircraft in Asia ? Why they are pulling out of Europe ? Why they went from 4 jumbo's daily to 2 ?Because of the EU's rediculous carbon tax. Qantas has to pay more tax because its starting point is the furthest.

instead of investing in some new and exiting green technology they've just removed any future aircraft orders from going to qantas entirely and giving them all to jetstar in their new home bases in singapore, vietnam, hong kong and japan. now when they carry the exact same passenger to europe in the future guess what, less tax. guess what, australians out of work. additional unwarranted taxes cost jobs. thats just 1 example.

why are our remaining steel mills about to be shut ?

why are all the petroleum refineries closing down ?

you really think australian companies which are sitting on cash deposits of over $400billion in the bank, double what they had pre GFC, are seriously going to invest in some new an exciting green technologies when the carbon tax is going up year and year after this little honeymoon period ?
04:23pm 17/12/12 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13200 posts
O I agree that taxes can cost jobs. Many of those examples you cite are not caused by a carbon tax that only came into fruition recently. A large portion of that is labor costs and very high commodity, oil and other energies prices. Not to mention a GFC that shook the world recently. O not to mention the AUD at record high levels, that is a really big factor for investment in Australia. At the moment it costs a lot more money than if we were at 80c/1usd or similar.

However I agree a carbon tax wont help matters in regard to those particular companies.

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 17:31:40 17/Dec/12
05:29pm 17/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9677 posts
Obama signed a Bill meaning US Airlines wont be paying the Airline Carbon Tax for US Flights into and out of Europe.
But gullible WatermellonLand Australia will be.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2012/11/27/obama-shields-us-airlines-from-eu-carbon-trading-scheme/1729765/

China Russia and India too refuse to pay.

It seems Australia is the only Country flogging this dead horse.
05:34pm 17/12/12 Permalink
orbitor
Brisbane, Queensland
8931 posts

why are our remaining steel mills about to be shut ?

why are all the petroleum refineries closing down ?


first one - exchange rate.

second one - exchange rate and economies of size (our refineries are too small to be competitive)
06:28pm 17/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7036 posts
Still citing a report as a source while blatantly refusing to acknowledge what else it says...

Science education needs more attention in this country it seems.
07:20pm 17/12/12 Permalink
Karmadelik
Brisbane, Queensland
194 posts
250 million years ago, long before dinosaurs roamed the Earth, the land and oceans teemed with life. This was the Permian, a golden era of biodiversity that was about to come to a crashing end. Within just a few thousand years, 95% of the lifeforms on the planet would be wiped out, in the biggest mass extinction Earth has ever known. What natural disaster could kill on such a massive scale? It is only in recent years that evidence has begun to emerge from rocks in Antarctica, Siberia and Greenland.


http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/day-earth-nearly-died/

The documentary goes on to say that it was the combined effect of a huge rupture in the earths crust spewing lava/magma onto the surface. This heated the oceans which melted the ice that encaptulated the greenhouse gases over the ages.

Now i'm not saying there's no such thing as climate change, I'm merely questioning the idea that humans are causing it today. If it took over 10 thousand years for the Permian crisis to eventuate, then seriously how much damage could the human population have done since the Industrial evolution?

FYI the big meteor that hit earth ages ago only killed off about 60% of life. This natural Permian event killed off 95%.
07:37pm 17/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1851 posts
oh nerf, you total contribution to this thread is a lot of froth. still waiting for a shred of fact instead of herd like subservience
07:38pm 17/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7037 posts
still waiting for a shred of fact

You even reject the exact source that you cited, calling it a conspiracy. So tell me, how on Earth can one provide 'fact' to your schizophrenia?
08:13pm 17/12/12 Permalink
Ozzy
Gold Coast, Queensland
246 posts
Ok so whats the largest energy source in our solar system? The Sun is going through a strange cycle at the moment and is not approaching a solar maxium like it was predicted. The Earth's magnetic shield is failing.

There is some strange s*** happening out there, where is this in the IPCC report. Ignoring the fact that the Sun fluctuates in magnetic and flare intensity is f*****g stupid.

If you guys want a brief summary this is a good one I found (don't worry too much about the 21st garbage):



All this information is publicly available, stop f*****g looking at one variable.
08:24pm 17/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1852 posts
ozzy, clearly you are a schizophrenic loon who lacks education and an ability to think criticaly as well as citing unreliable sources because i don't believe in anyone who has any other agenda except for the one i subscribe to because i'm so clearly right all the time.

08:39pm 17/12/12 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
5512 posts
Bravo to all involved - I'm having a difficult time deciding whether this is one massive troll thread or you guys really are nuttier than a fruit cake.

http://d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net/images/cm-33120-050b569f993033.gif
08:47pm 17/12/12 Permalink
Some Fat Bastard
Brisbane, Queensland
1228 posts
peer reviewed papers funded by governments with an agenda seeking outcome more eloquently put here
Faceman, is that you?

ozzy, clearly you are a schizophrenic loon who lacks education and an ability to think criticaly as well as citing unreliable sources because i don't believe in anyone who has any other agenda except for the one i subscribe to because i'm so clearly right all the time.
The irony.

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 12:00:36 18/Dec/12
11:59am 18/12/12 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13249 posts
You know what the worst thing about these threads is? Its impossible to have a sane discussion on climate change science and related politics on this forum because of the loons and the anti-loons.

I have questions I'd love to explore on here about the way that climate science is conducted, the suspicions around funding bias and the reliability of the science's predictions ... but its entirely impossible. Threads like this polarise any AGW discussion into atomic positions that don't really leave a lot of room for calm, rational inquiry. I'm a voter with an eye on my Government (and alternative Gov't) and I'd love to form a position on green legislation that was informed and balanced but it's a bit difficult to navigate the issue online.

You're either on the side of science or conspiracy, and its a missed opportunity to discuss probably the most important issue of our time.
12:37pm 18/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9680 posts
The fact is the Majority of the World doesnt accept the evidence.

Australia is increasing its Coal exports, its obvious we dont even believe it.


12:49pm 18/12/12 Permalink
Sip
Brisbane, Queensland
564 posts
You know what the worst thing about these threads is? Its impossible to have a sane discussion on climate change science and related politics on this forum because of the loons and the anti-loons.I have questions I'd love to explore on here about the way that climate science is conducted, the suspicions around funding bias and the reliability of the science's predictions ... but its entirely impossible. Threads like this polarise any AGW discussion into atomic positions that don't really leave a lot of room for calm, rational inquiry. I'm a voter with an eye on my Government (and alternative Gov't) and I'd love to form a position on green legislation that was informed and balanced but it's a bit difficult to navigate the issue online. You're either on the side of science or conspiracy, and its a missed opportunity to discuss probably the most important issue of our time.


Wow you win at life Hoggy, nicely said.

The way I see it, I stand on the side of not wasting finite resources at the expense of our health and the health of our life supporting ecology. If there is an alternative (renewables) I'm 100% for it, also (can't help myself) Beyond Zero Emission has a plan for 100% renewable energy within 10 years for Australia at http://beyondzeroemissions.org/ They have a Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan document for those that are technically minded: http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf
01:07pm 18/12/12 Permalink
thermite
Brisbane, Queensland
10600 posts
I think I'm not polarised into an atomic position. I'm not convinced on climate change because the ideal evidence that I need (a laboratory experiment presented by a children's television host) hasn't been presented, and the dissemination of information about climate change is fishy which I frequently complain about, but I accept there are a lot of scientists that are convinced. I'm definitly against the carbon tax, it raises more issues that are of more immediate concern, and politics doesn't seem like the thing that is going to help the environment. We know pollution isn't great, and that is absolutely reflected in the sorts of innovations that are being made recently, we are moving away from pollution as it is. If only part of the scientific community can even wrap their minds around the climate change thing, then maybe it is those minds, and those that follow in their footsteps, that will be bringing solutions to the table - not Julia Gillard.
More importantly it's not a problem that I've caused, and my life shouldn't be affected by these taxes. I didn't invent cars, I didn't decide we all need to go to work everyday and buy petrol, I didn't come up with the economy, I was just born - that's it, that's the one thing I f***ed up was allowing myself to exist. Now I have to pay a carbon tax. Thanks a f*****g lot b****.
01:29pm 18/12/12 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13252 posts
More importantly it's not a problem that I've caused, and my life shouldn't be affected by these taxes. I didn't invent cars, I didn't decide we all need to go to work everyday and buy petrol, I didn't come up with the economy, I was just born - that's it, that's the one thing I f***ed up was allowing myself to exist. Now I have to pay a carbon tax. Thanks a f*****g lot b****.

See I don't think this is a rational position to take. You didn't invent the world you live in, but you live in it and you affect it.

If it is shown that your behaviour is harming your only habitable world then you should be willing to endure reasonable change to rectify the problem, otherwise you are just another in a chain of 'not my f*****g problem' people.
01:33pm 18/12/12 Permalink
paveway
Brisbane, Queensland
17603 posts
More importantly it's not a problem that I've caused, and my life shouldn't be affected by these taxes. I didn't invent cars, I didn't decide we all need to go to work everyday and buy petrol, I didn't come up with the economy, I was just born - that's it, that's the one thing I f***ed up was allowing myself to exist. Now I have to pay a carbon tax. Thanks a f*****g lot b****.



lol

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/27592473.jpg

last edited by paveway at 13:40:57 18/Dec/12
01:37pm 18/12/12 Permalink
reso
I can't read
Brisbane, Queensland
5371 posts
Grats on your piece of pie, Cainer! That is what this is all about right?
01:41pm 18/12/12 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
21959 posts
Hog: if only there were other forums not filled with retards that had proper moderation on the Internet you could post on. QGL is a funny little Internet backwater where the true weirdos come out to play. It's fun to mock them but they make discussion impossible. This thread should have been closed at the OP because cainer didn't even read the report he posted which contained no useful information in the first place.
02:14pm 18/12/12 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13253 posts
In my experience AGW is one of those topics that its hard to find a reasonable, calm, non-crazy discussion on the internet.
02:52pm 18/12/12 Permalink
thermite
Brisbane, Queensland
10602 posts
If it is shown that your behaviour is harming your only habitable world then you should be willing to endure reasonable change to rectify the problem, otherwise you are just another in a chain of 'not my f*****g problem' people.


Yeah bulls***, my behaviour doesn't do s***, and if it does it isn't because of me. There are motherf*****s getting rich off the cars and the oil and the mining, I'm not, I'm just doing what is expected of me and getting by. Now the tax on these motherf*****s is being passed down to me because I have no alternative. Yeah it isn't my f*****g problem, let me know how exactly it is. Of course I'd be willing to do my part if we all decide to help and had an actual plan, but that isn't the case, someone has decided that I will be paying the tax, and the c**** that made billions that caused this don't have to give that up. Where is the commitment from those benevolent decision makers to look into alternatives? Nope, heres the solution: Have more babies and then tell them it's all their problem, send them to work and tax them for their efforts, and when their bewilderment sets in; start accusing them of being just another in a chain of 'not my f*****g problem' people.

03:21pm 18/12/12 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13255 posts
Unsure if troll or dumb. Either way, done.
04:36pm 18/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9681 posts
You're either on the side of science or conspiracy,


There is just as much good Science against AGW as there is for it.
AGW is only part of Climate Science it isnt all of Climate Science.






05:15pm 18/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7041 posts
There is just as much good Science against AGW as there is for it.
AGW is only part of Climate Science it isnt all of Climate Science.

Sigh http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-creationism-faq.htm

@Hoggy, as the only really active anti-crazy here, I'm not on the side of 'science', I'm against misinformation and misrepresentation of policy-related research (particularly that with health and well-being impacts, such as the matters of fluoride, vaccines, climate change, etc - the same as you with your recent vaccination thread, although I actively tried to engage these f*****s and get them to highlight just how screwy they are).
08:45pm 18/12/12 Permalink
paveway
Brisbane, Queensland
17607 posts
It is always great to watch hog, it's too frequent and in depth to be troll though

last edited by paveway at 21:07:23 18/Dec/12
09:01pm 18/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9682 posts
how does proving creationism wrong prove agw is true ?
maybe that impresses an idiot.

compelling evidence that human Co2 emissions are dangerously heating the planet would convince me.
post some of that Dr Strangelove.

oh thats right, the consensus is good enough for you.
09:04pm 18/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7042 posts
Sigh...

There is just as much good Science against AGW as there is for it.
AGW is only part of Climate Science it isnt all of Climate Science.
There is much evidence against biological macroevolution. Some of Darwin’s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence. One fact is that body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually. Michael Behe discovered that cells were irreducibly complex. They needed every single chemical and part to function. Consequently, they could not have gradually evolved. Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.


When somebody is willing to lie and misrepresent the state of the research, only then is there as much credible research for crazy-position-x as there is for non-flat-earth positions.
09:09pm 18/12/12 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
21972 posts
I really think the highlight of this thread so far is thermite using the " I didn't ask to be born" argument. I haven't seen someone use that since primary school.
09:10pm 18/12/12 Permalink
loutl
Brisbane, Queensland
293 posts
I've tried before to have discussions about the science but no one is interested. It's all polemic and point scoring. A dubious policy response to an overstated level of certainty should be clear as day for any objective party.
09:17pm 18/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7043 posts
I've tried before to have discussions about the science but no one is interested.

Lol. Here are loutl's attempts at having 'discussions on the science':

People: Gaia is not a real person. Mother Nature is not a real person. Our planet's climate is always changing. Changing climate will not harm your children.
AGW is dead for now. The (so called) first world can't afford to send tons of cash to the (so called) third world at the moment, which is all that the scare was ever about.

Expect it (or some close variant) to resurface the next time the (so called) first world is doing well.
The CO2 emissions -> catastrophic warming hypothesis is shockingly weak and more people are beginning to realise this, much to the chagrin of those that stand to benefit from the scare.

These conspiracy nuts are carried entirely on how confidently they bulls***...
09:21pm 18/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1853 posts
09:39pm 18/12/12 Permalink
loutl
Brisbane, Queensland
294 posts
Disagree nerf, that is me having given up any hope of discussion on the science and joining you in the polemic. Not withstanding that though, it is true that gaia is not a real person and it is my conclusion that so far the projected climate related crises arising from our ghg emissions are not supported by the evidence, certainly not to the level that would justify shutting down fossil fuel use in favour of alternatives that are not up to the task.
09:41pm 18/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7044 posts
"Science is a bunch of hippies conspiring to destroy the first worl- H-Hey, why are people dismissing me when I'm so clearly sane and super intelligent?"
09:52pm 18/12/12 Permalink
loutl
Brisbane, Queensland
295 posts
If I'd ever actually said that then you would be making a point. A suggestion Nerf, stop putting your words in others' mouths. You invariably misrepresent their actual position, either from ignorance or malice.
10:03pm 18/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7045 posts
If I'd ever actually said that

Oh you are a sick one.

one
two
three
10:16pm 18/12/12 Permalink
loutl
Brisbane, Queensland
296 posts
Nerf you've just linked to three posts I made, that you have already posted above, none of which say anything remotely like your "paraphrase". You do not seem interested in an honest discussion.
10:21pm 18/12/12 Permalink
paveway
Brisbane, Queensland
17608 posts
Get personal nerfy

Thermite can you tell us more
10:22pm 18/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7046 posts
none of which say anything remotely like your "paraphrase".

You are incredible.

http://i.imgur.com/mcrYZ.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/UWlzM.png
10:25pm 18/12/12 Permalink
loutl
Brisbane, Queensland
297 posts
If you truly think that is equivalent to the statement: "Science is a bunch of hippies conspiring to destroy the first worl-" then I can't help you.
10:34pm 18/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1854 posts
nerf still lacks the ability to acknowledge the most important part in the latest 'leaked' report. gobble gobble.
10:44pm 18/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7048 posts
11:06pm 18/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1855 posts
take some more fluoride nerf, you'll have stronger teeth, less cavities and you'll live in a fog of passive acceptance on what they tell you to believe, you turkey
11:30pm 18/12/12 Permalink
Sip
Brisbane, Queensland
565 posts
Hey Nerf maybe some Tyson wisdom will help you through this:

12:07am 19/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7049 posts
I've seen the vid, and I don't think that Tyson is as effective as Dawkins, nor consistent by his own criticism there (he mocks plenty, just on topics that he cares about such as string theory and astrophysics, he has double standards. Nor is he in a field as attacked by the crazy as Dawkins' is. I think that he's a fun awesome dude, but enormously inconsistent depending on the day of the week).

The real question however, is why are you giving me this advice, and not the 'gobble/fluoride/2012 youtube videos about the sun as our source/lying about current state of professional science publications' d***wads? Are you saying that me calling them out on their s*** is more of a problem then them speaking s***? Because I'm not a fan of those apologist double standards either and will call you out on that too :P. My only goal in these situations is to demonstrate to everybody else why these people are not worth listening to (which I think that I achieved when they busted out the fluoride mind control/3rd world conspiracies/refusing to read their own paper/2012 videos), I don't think that I can ever change their minds as there's actually something fundamentally "ill" about them.
12:20am 19/12/12 Permalink
Sip
Brisbane, Queensland
566 posts
My point was if your intention is to actually change minds rather then push people closer to their ideology you might find an educational awareness standpoint more effective without making people feel stupid or alienated. Because Dawkin's is attacked as frequent do you think it has anything to do with his methodology? I mean I'm sure there is a more effective way to converse without being a d*** about it, all people see is an ego they don't see the information being presented and the only ones who listen almost always already agreed with his direction to begin with.

Why I'm doing it is because your not an idiot and the information you present is usually pretty good, its your delivery that sucks.
Btw I broke your theory that if someone believes in one thing they believe in all things. I don't agree with mass fluoridation (I still believe there is a better way) but I agree with vaccines, climate change science, I do believe heads of corporations have strong swaying power but they are human and they don't rule the world. Everyone has the capacity for change, some quicker then others it's just a matter of something triggering them and usually well sourced information they can comprehend helps bridge the gap.

Anyways just a thought, I'll let you resume your s****torm lol.
02:18am 19/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7050 posts
My point was if your intention is to actually change minds

As I said, my goal isn't to change their minds, I do not think that there is much plausible chance to change the minds of people who believe that fluoride and climate change are global conspiracies to become drugged mindless zombies or sap the first world of wealth with a lie somehow perpetuated through the world's bulk of professional scientists. My goal is to get them to reveal just how crazy they are by goading them, so that anybody else thinking "Gee whiz, these confident information-backed guys must be onto something" can do a second take. It's for the benefit of people like Hog who are obviously eager to believe them (see: him entering this thread to mock me, and every other thread on the topic before it, yet his constant civility or enthusiasm towards them while being an ass to me), yet who are still intelligent enough to recognise ultra-s*** which should be backed away from when it reveals itself. I think that I have made some progress with some of the people who used to join faceman and co in their bulls***, yet now have stepped back and are being less of an ass to me after all.

Btw I broke your theory that if someone believes in one thing they believe in all things

That was fpot's speculation, I only linked a study observing this characteristic in thousands of climate science deniers.

I mean I'm sure there is a more effective way to converse without being a d*** about it

How was I being a d*** though? By sticking to the point in highlighting just how terrible their positions were? And again, where was your criticism for them after they most definitively were d**** with their 'gobble gobble' nonsense?

and the information you present is usually pretty good

It's not so much that my information is good, I don't really think that it is, it's just that their's is so so bad...
02:39am 19/12/12 Permalink
loutl
Brisbane, Queensland
298 posts
Yes Nerf you are doing God's work for sure.

Sip is telling you very diplomatically that you come across as an a******* and no one listens to a single word you say. Rather than convincing poor gullible fence sitters like Hog that the world is made up of people who either believe every single thing you do or paranoid pshyco tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists all you're doing is showing him that you will not engage in a rational discussion on specific issues and it comes across as condescending and ultimately suspect.

07:05am 19/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7052 posts
As I said, I'm not here to change the minds of conspiracy theorists.

Sip is telling you very diplomatically that you come across as an a******* and no one listens to a single word you say

Sip very diplomatically said that he was upset about me not respecting people like him over fluoridation. Plenty of people in this thread have agreed with me, I just come off as an a****** to people who post easily disprovable dishonesties and are upset at being called out on their bulls***.
08:01am 19/12/12 Permalink
Fireman Sam
Brisbane, Queensland
104 posts
In his defence loutl it's hard not to come across as an a******* when you're dealing with idiots.
09:03am 19/12/12 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13257 posts
It's for the benefit of people like Hog who are obviously eager to believe them (see: him entering this thread to mock me, and every other thread on the topic before it, yet his constant civility or enthusiasm towards them while being an ass to me), yet who are still intelligent enough to recognise ultra-s*** which should be backed away from when it reveals itself. I think that I have made some progress with some of the people who used to join faceman and co in their bulls***, yet now have stepped back and are being less of an ass to me after all.

I gave up calling you out on you being a jerk to people, you seem to like it, and its QGL after all, so whatever. While stepping up your insults you also seem to have stopped accusing other people of bullying so its all good bebe, you're one of us now!

I would prefer it if you kept me out of your rants, but you're a little fixated and that's fine.
09:47am 19/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7053 posts
I gave up calling you out on you being a jerk to people

If there is one person in all of QGL who would be able to be more of a hypocrite, I haven't yet encountered them.

to have stopped accusing other people of bullying

No your whole post is laden with it, it's a weird thing you do, I just ignore it now.

but you're a little fixated and that's fine

Ignoring that you bring me up in nearly every single thread without me having posted in them... Let's not play dumb and pretend that you didn't give me a heap of s*** for not buying this climate science conspiracy nonsense from the exact same people. I just know how to goad them better now and get them to reveal positions which nobody would go near with a thousand foot pole.
09:54am 19/12/12 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13258 posts
Hi Nerf. How is your day today? You seem a little agitated lately, getting any hoo-ha?
10:02am 19/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7054 posts
Only agitated by s***** people. Hypocrites don't help my calm.
10:15am 19/12/12 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13259 posts
Well, its nearly Christmas, things may turn around matey. I hear wearing red at Christmas time helps your chances of getting laid.

Oh and for a new, fun forum game, I'm keeping count of the bulls***, lame references from here on out. As of this thread, Nerf ref Hog 1, Hog ref Nerf 0. As I mentioned, I'd rather you didn't do it, so lets see how this pans out LOL!
10:22am 19/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7055 posts
This side of you is really ugly dude, and you know it. Don't be that guy, I know there's a better person in you who comes out to play sometimes.

I'm keeping count of the bulls***, lame references from here on out.

K, start with your impromptu contribution to this thread in regular single-targeted fashion - http://www.ausgamers.com/forums/general/thread.php/3261735#post3261743
10:26am 19/12/12 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13260 posts
Nah, lets not do that, I don't have time to trawl back finding s*** people did through forum history. I have 13,000 posts to cover.

As I'm a nice guy, I'll even cut you a break, lets call it 0-0 and go from there?
10:39am 19/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7056 posts
How about you admit that you came in here with nothing to say except trying to have a go at me, yet again.

This thread is just a series of me being too patient with liars and people who can't admit to what they just said or referenced. But f*** it, it's better than debugging in this heat.
10:58am 19/12/12 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
5517 posts
Nerf, why do you care so much that people on the Internet are wrong? It's exhausting work - there's no shortage of morons out there. If you think this forum is bad, for your own sanity try to stay away from the comments section of Youtube.
11:07am 19/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7057 posts
I only care when their misinformation has the potential to be harmful.
11:13am 19/12/12 Permalink
loutl
Brisbane, Queensland
299 posts
This post has been removed.
Reason: Nah
Send Private Message
11:24am 19/12/12 Permalink
HyperJ
Brisbane, Queensland
424 posts
This thread is just a series of me being too patient with liars and people who can't admit to what they just said or referenced.

I would have rage quit this thread early on, respect though for trying to reason with the unreasonable.
02:40pm 19/12/12 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13262 posts
How about you admit that you came in here with nothing to say except trying to have a go at me, yet again.

Umm, I came in here with a general point about AGW discussions that didn't reference you aside from tangentially, and probably was more on your side than anything (as Faceman jumped up to declare its not science vs conspiracy, when in this odd thread it really is). I got what I wanted (a PM about a more balanced discussion from sane people) and was on my merry way when you dropped my name for some reason I don't quite follow, aside from being in a persistent state of anger at me?

Look mate, I really don't care about you as much as you seem to think. If you stop it with the Hog references you'll find I have nothing to say to you, I'm fundamentally disinterested in your delusional, depressed little reality. It was fun to poke the weird kid for a while and watch him asplode everywhere, but I'm done with it now.

This Nerf-Hog thing is kind of embarrassing for me and I really, genuinely want it to stop. I feel like I picked up an urchin, it reeks, and it won't get off my f*****g leg.

Hence the game. If you're going to claim every time I post in a thread you're active in that ITS ALL ABOUT YOU you're going to be doing that a lot, because we both post here a lot.
02:51pm 19/12/12 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13204 posts
I think it is about time this thread got locked.
02:59pm 19/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9685 posts
I just wish he'd post some evidence that could be discussed.
You cant claim its a Science vs non-Science argument.
I posted one open letter against the Science signed by highly qualified scientists.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/

There was another open letter from ex-NASA Scientists earlier this year.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

And another open letter from a group calling themselves concerned Scientists.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html


Can you find some other field of mainstream Science that has been challenged by such qualified Sceptical opinions from a variety of fields ?
03:08pm 19/12/12 Permalink
Ozzy
Gold Coast, Queensland
247 posts
cainer do your counter arguments go beyond insulting people?

pretty boring...

The video I put up has all the links to the data to make your own decision.

Faceman, yes I can the big bang theory is being challenged by a plethora of scientists to explain the universe by electric magnetic fields. This is also being squash and disallowed by mainstream science, just like Global Warming.

I don't know why us humans think this is totally our fault? As if we have control over the climate, trolololol.
08:36pm 19/12/12 Permalink
parabol
Brisbane, Queensland
7388 posts
I just wish he'd post some evidence that could be discussed.

Looking at your last "evidence", all I saw were three links to finance/business papers and sites, one of which even had "opinion" in the URL.

Those invested in big business claim "all is fine, there's nothing to see here."

Who would have thought!
09:06pm 19/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7058 posts
Umm, I came in here with a general point about AGW discussions that didn't reference you aside from tangentially

Sigh. No, you didn't, what is with this weird hypocritical trolling and then denial that you do? This is how you enter these threads. "I'll do something to somebody and then accuse them of doing it, yeah they're totally going to buy that, that'll work well for me"
09:34pm 19/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9686 posts
well derrr parabol because i was showing it isnt just conspiracy nuts that dispute the nonsense of Co2 Warming.

Where in Earths Climate history has Co2 controlled Temperature ?
It would seem to be the years 1980-1998 Vs 2 billion years of non-Co2 warming.
09:44pm 19/12/12 Permalink
parabol
Brisbane, Queensland
7389 posts
well derrr parabol because i was showing it isnt just conspiracy nuts that dispute the nonsense of Co2 Warming.

So you're merely pointing out other biased sources that we should ignore?

Got it.
09:47pm 19/12/12 Permalink
loutl
Brisbane, Queensland
300 posts
He said she said he said she said.

parabol, does it not make you pause for one second when you consider that over the past 15 years or so, there has been more CO2 released into the atmosphere than ever, but there has been no statistically significant surface warming in the same period?

What is the mechanism that is off-setting all of the expected GHG warming that would have been expected over that period?

If such a mechanism can operate at such a magnitude at decadal timescales, can it operate at longer time scales? How can we be so certain of attribution of earlier warming in the face of this mechanism?

Why did none of the relevant scenario climate model runs from 15 years ago provide for this sustained level of non-warming?
10:32pm 19/12/12 Permalink
Karmadelik
Brisbane, Queensland
195 posts
well derrr parabol because i was showing it isnt just conspiracy nuts that dispute the nonsense of Co2 Warming.

Where in Earths Climate history has Co2 controlled Temperature ?
It would seem to be the years 1980-1998 Vs 2 billion years of non-Co2 warming.



well i gave an example further up in this thread but doesn't look like you noticed.
250million years ago... Temperature rose somthing like 15-16 degrees, because of greenhouse gas (which includes Co2), and killed 95% of life.
But not that that's important at all?
10:42pm 19/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1856 posts
cainer do your counter arguments go beyond insulting people?


i dont need a counter argument when nerf can't see anything else except his froth and actually read something that i've articulated and not pasted from elsewhere. i actually have a point of view based upon what is now considered fact by the demigods that nerf can't stop prosthelytising yet he can't see it.

the global warming/cooling whatever shows a 'low confidence' of correlation to increased incidence of flood, drought, hurricanes, cyclones or ANY extreme weather.

until he can admit that glaring fact and the previous 'fact' thats now a fiction - being that global warming/cooling DID correlate to extreme weather events and as such was justification to introduce carbon trading schemes was a big fat lie

then i'll stop calling him a silly turkey

until then, nerf youre a turkey *gobble gobble*
10:48pm 19/12/12 Permalink
parabol
Brisbane, Queensland
7390 posts
but there has been no statistically significant surface warming in the same period?

So you're one of those people who completely ignores the long-term data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif


.. and instead cherry-picks a MEGA zoomed-in segment to claim no change:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif

(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/)

You guys make it really easy to dismiss your opinions. It's like you're not even trying.

I'd recommend an introductory class in statistics, instead of embarrassing yourself further.

/thread
10:59pm 19/12/12 Permalink
loutl
Brisbane, Queensland
301 posts
no parabol, I'm not dismissing the (slightly) longer term trend at all. There has been a well known warming since 1880, a lot occurred in a period where it's widely agreed that human GHG emissions could not have played a large role. A lot of it very much in a period where CO2 emissions were going through the roof. Now we have a period of ~15 years with no statisically significant warming, despite CO2 rising faster than ever.

You look at those observations and think, "case closed" ??? Seriously?
11:10pm 19/12/12 Permalink
parabol
Brisbane, Queensland
7392 posts
You look at those observations and think, "case closed" ??? Seriously?

The other day I turned on the kettle. Despite so much energy being dissipated into the water, nothing happened in the first 15 seconds. Therefore I should have simply concluded that kettles are unable to affect the temperature of water. All those pesky "scientists" and their laws of thermodynamics conspiracies ...
11:17pm 19/12/12 Permalink
Bah
Brisbane, Queensland
4849 posts
Pretty sure 100 years is already MEGA Zoomed in relatively speaking anyway.
11:30pm 19/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7059 posts
Sigh, cainer, I don't know why I even bother with somebody cheering on 2012 apocalypse videos being presented as evidence, but I know that you still haven't read the source that you're citing and dared others to read.

It is very likely that there will be an increase in the occurrence of future extreme sea level and flooding
events. The combined effects of mean sea level rise and changes in storminess will determine future
extremes. There is high confidence that extremes will increase with global mean sea level rise, however,
there is low confidence in region-specific projections in storminess and storm surges. The impact on the
return period for exceeding given threshold levels is likely to be high, for example with current 100-year
return period events decreasing to 10-year and possibly 1-year events by the end of the 21st century
The assessed literature still supports the conclusion from AR4 that climate sensitivity is
likely in the range 2–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value remains near 3°C. An
ECS greater than about 6–7°C is very unlikely, based on combination of multiple lines of evidence
It is virtually certain that there will be more hot and fewer cold extremes as global temperature increases
(Caesar and Lowe, 2012; Orlowsky and Seneviratne, 2012; Sillmann and Roeckner, 2008), consistent with
previous assessments
Extreme Events in the Water Cycle

In addition to the changes in the seasonal pattern of mean precipitation described above, the distribution of
precipitation events is projected to very likely undergo profound changes (Boberg et al., 2010; Gutowski et
al., 2007; Sun et al., 2007). At daily to weekly scales, a shift to more intense individual storms and fewer
weak storms is projected (Seneviratne et al., 2012). At seasonal or longer time scales, increased
evapotranspiration over land can lead to more frequent and more intense periods of agricultural drought.
It is also very likely that heat waves, defined as spells of days with temperature above a threshold determined
from historical climatology, will occur with a higher frequency and duration, mainly as a direct consequence
of the increase in seasonal mean temperatures (Ballester et al., 2010a; Ballester et al., 2010b; Barnett et al.,
2006; Fischer and Schar, 2010). Changes in the absolute value of temperature extremes are also very likely
and expected to regionally exceed global temperature increases by far, with substantial changes in hot
extremes projected even for moderate average warming levels
Human discomfort, morbidity and mortality during heat waves depend not only on temperature but also
humidity. Heat stress, defined as the combined effect of temperature and humidity, is expected to increase
along with warming temperatures and dominates the local decrease in summer relative humidity due to soil
drying (Diffenbaugh et al., 2007; Fischer et al., 2012a). Areas with abundant atmospheric moisture
availability and high present-day temperatures such as Mediterranean coastal regions are expected to
experience the greatest heat stress changes because the heat stress response scales with humidity which thus
becomes increasingly important to heat stress at higher temperatures
There is high consensus amongst models in the sign of the future change in temperature extremes, with
recent studies confirming this conclusion from the previous assessment (Meehl et al., 2007b; Orlowsky and
Seneviratne, 2012; Seneviratne et al., 2012; Sillmann et al., 2012; Tebaldi et al., 2006). However, the
magnitude of the change remains uncertain due to scenario and model (both structural and parameter)
uncertainty (Clark et al., 2010) as well as internal variability


Of course, "Oh, the conclusions of the report in full context reveals the report as an obvious conspiracy, I only accept professional honesties about the range of regional predictabilities when I can cherry pick them and ignore the difference between regional and global, and simultaneously declare those same professionals to be liars."
11:32pm 19/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9687 posts
250million years ago... Temperature rose somthing like 15-16 degrees, because of greenhouse gas


Co2 rise follows a Temperature rise by up to 800 years
A Warming Planet releases more Co2 which is prolly why Plants like a Warming Planet, vegetation increases, as does more Life.
This Co2 lags Temperature is a very important distinction and something James Hansen and Al Gore tried to LIE about in Inconvenient Truth.
A British High Court Judge found Hansen and Gores graph did not represent what they claimed it did.

http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg

12:12am 20/12/12 Permalink
parabol
Brisbane, Queensland
7393 posts
Co2 rise follows a Temperature rise by up to 800 years

The "graph" you pasted has the URL:

http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg

The guy running the site is an author of a book released to make money.

Still waiting for unbiased "evidence" from you.

*yawn*
02:09am 20/12/12 Permalink
kos
Germany
2399 posts
It wouldn't be a climate change thread without my favourite cartoon:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg
02:49am 20/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9688 posts
the graph tells you who created it
Source: Temperature reconstruction by C.R. Scotese;
CO2 reconstruction after R.A. Berner; see also IPCC (2007).]
03:11am 20/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7061 posts
I posted one open letter against the Science signed by highly qualified scientists.

Every single 'science conspiracy' theory has these citable negligible lists of dissenters, from creationism to anti vaccination to quantum healing (there was even a nobel prize winner in that group!) to denying climate change to claiming that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer. You cannot point to one in a million (normally far less credible at that too) and say that two positions are equally professionally credible when they are blatantly not.

Evolution deniers tried to create controversy with A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, where creationists got “scientists” to sign a document that said “
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.”
It now has over 1200 signatures, which sounds impressive, except for a few problems, such as fewer than 20% of the “scientists” are biologists. But the bigger issue is that 1200, even if we accept that they all have an intimate understanding of biological evolution, represents less than 0.03% of biological scientists in the United States (let alone the whole world). If this were a democracy, this election is a landslide.

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

There is a percentage of top scientists who believe in gods, and ufo abductions, and star signs, and stupid s***. It happens, they are a minority, and you learn to be pragmatic and move on when there is overwhelming professional consensus on a heavily researched topic. There are people who have grudges, there are people who have faiths, there are people who are comfortably close to some very rich anti-science resource-inheritor types such as Gina Rinehart and the Koch brothers, and more than anything there are people who are not at all qualified in that field (engineers, biologists, etc) who are communicating unethically passing themselves as simply "scientists". That's like a dentist giving their opinion on brain surgery.

Hell, I'm a qualified engineer, meaning applied scientist, and have worked in one of the world's cutting edge research centres. Shall I start giving my scientific opinion? Because I shouldn't.
09:05am 20/12/12 Permalink
parabol
Brisbane, Queensland
7395 posts
IF THEORY DIFFERS FROM OBSERVATIONS, THE THEORY IS WRONG

Ah, quoting "data" from a blog that focuses on "Climate FAIL files" and "climategate".

How can one argue against such reputable sources!
02:32pm 20/12/12 Permalink
Jim
UK
13139 posts
IF THEORY DIFFERS FROM OBSERVATIONS, THE THEORY IS WRONG


writing it in caps doesn't make it true
the observation might be wrong and the theory sound. did you already forget the OPERA neutrinos
03:58pm 20/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9691 posts
caps is from the WUWT story.
I guess you didnt read it.


04:40pm 20/12/12 Permalink
Jim
UK
13141 posts
are you serious, I stopped reading links you post ages ago because they almost always made me want to headbutt my desk

anyway, what does it matter where it was quoted from
05:19pm 20/12/12 Permalink
kos
Germany
2404 posts
are you serious, I stopped reading links you post ages ago because they almost always made me want to headbutt my desk

QFT!
10:25pm 20/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9692 posts

Why are ppl so unkind to me
11:43pm 20/12/12 Permalink
Jim
UK
13142 posts
it's just hard love!
12:04am 21/12/12 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19356 posts
I love that cartoon because the missing ingredient is lots of taxpayer dollars. Cha ching - climate change industry!

12:17am 21/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
446 posts
This post has been removed.
Reason: Silly
Send Private Message
12:21am 21/12/12 Permalink
kos
Germany
2407 posts
So? Are you saying that lots of tax dollars going towards those goals is a bad thing?
And isn't the foundation of our capitalist system the fact that whatever we do someone can get rich from it?

I don't doubt that there are plenty of people trying to exploit climate change hysteria to make obscene amounts of money, but I would find it very hard to believe that there are not many many more people doing their very best to shoot it down in order to keep on making obscene amounts of money.
12:41am 21/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1858 posts
not when the government picks the winners based upon hysteria.

the foundation of capitalism is hands off. if you want to make some money, believe what you sell, and make it better and cheaper then what else is on the market, if society thinks its better you'll get rich. if the government supports that philosphy its a capitalist government. deciding arbitrarily that co2 = extreme weather events to be avoided at all costs and introducing a carbon trading scheme mechanism enforceable by law in response it hardly fits in that mode. that 'someone' who is getting rich, its already been decided.

if you peddle mass hysteria whilst simultaneously proposing the 'fix' as in 'this many trees on an acre of land is worth xxx tones of carbon per year'. an excuse to export pollution or pay to pollute. who are you paying ?

just think about a f***en 'carbon credit'. what the f*** is it. if someone can answer that simple question without thinking its just 1 big huge f***en scam then they're deluded.

what is a 'carbon credit' in a literal sense, is it a tangible asset ?
who is getting the money paid to buy the 'carbon credit' ?
01:18am 21/12/12 Permalink
kos
Germany
2408 posts
The problem is that you act like anyone who says anything about climate change being real is automatically doing it to make money by scaring people while acting like anyone making the counter argument is just innocently telling the truth. It's as unbalanced as the complete other side of the argument.

I'm not in any way arguing that carbon tax is a good or effective solution, but looking at the large proportion of the scientific community that seem to agree that it's likely there is some sort of climate change happening that we have an influence on, I find it pretty hard to believe that they're all doing it just to make money.
01:31am 21/12/12 Permalink
cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
1859 posts
precisely why i dont care about it being real or not. the simple fact is, the carbon tax is being paid right now, where is it being paid to, i'd love to know. i think i've been pretty consistant in saying that so far in this thread. most turkeys in here seem to confuse me saying that the carbon tax is a scam with グロバルワミングはうそです
01:55am 21/12/12 Permalink
kos
Germany
2410 posts
precisely why i dont care about it being real or not... ...most turkeys in here seem to confuse me saying that the carbon tax is a scam with グロバルワミングはうそです

Oh wow, I have no idea how a turkey like me could get so confused!

I guess I was just thrown by you creating a thread titled "So, 'climate change' is propaganda afterall" and devoting the entire OP to random tidbits purportedly debunking climate change with absolutely no mention of carbon tax whatsoever.
02:10am 21/12/12 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7066 posts
precisely why i dont care about it being real or not.

after
the majority herd have invested so much time and effort into just accepting that they're right that when glaring evidence, like total discounting of the big firey thing in the sky has nothing to do with warming and cooling cycles all throughout earths history and blame an evil gas.


GTFO of here cainer. The amount of blatant lies in this thread about what you lot apparently never said, when it's easily provable, is either amusing or depressing, I haven't decided which.
02:21am 21/12/12 Permalink
system
Internet
--
02:21am 21/12/12 Permalink
AusGamers Forums
Show: per page
1