OT: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

Trevor Wilson wrote: ...

...

To put it in numerical terms, a search of the literature since c1970 shows about 40,000 journal publications with "climate change" or "global warming" or related keywords.

Of these, about 800 papers (i.e. around 2%) have taken a view that (e.g.) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, the so-called "greenhouse effect" is negligible, or the greenhouse effect (usually calculated to add 33C to the earth's average surface temperature thereby putting conditions mostly above freezing for its distance from the primary) is not affected by human activity, or there is nothing that can be done to change any warming effect and we should just lay back and take it, etc.

Another analysis (I've posted that elsewhere) suggests those

800 minority position articles have mostly been written by a dozen authors over the past 40 y.

So if we admit that opinion is not unanimous (who would think it would be?) then it's something like 98% to 2% seem to view the available evidence in a certain way. (That itself doesn't always point in just one direction -- but only kooks claim there are no exceptions to their little rules).

--
Scientists are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity.  It proves that all science is lies 
and the only thing we can trust is right wing rhetoric.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100

ute

ss?

nd

to

th

h):

A proven corrupt "results for money" group who you wouldnt trust even if your life depended on it.

e

How about the climategate "scientists" caught with their pants down fabricating data ??

e

een

us

That isnt a very scientific observation

.

..

.

kreed wrote: ...

...

Are we running down medical practitioners again?

Simple answer. Don't get sick or go into a hospital.

Or you could always ask to get free treatment to guarantee an honest diagnosis...

--
There have been floods before and there will be floods again. The
Austrailian floods weren't even record breaking.
[Later turns out Monkey judges all Australian floods by the height of 
the Brisbane R].
-- Monkey Clumps , 30 Jan 2011 15:13 -0800

: ** There was an American surgeon interviewed on ABC radio a few years back, who gave simple advice.

He said, in essence, that if a surgeon ever recommend surgery - seek the advice of another.

Repeat this process up to 9 times, but only if necessary.

Stop of course, if any surgeon says it not needed.

Cos he is the one who is right.

.... Phil

climate change is a load of crap.

people dont realize , that climate change has just been created.

it is false. the government just wanted to create a demand to pay them moree money.

like i say , they cant tell us what the wether will be next tuesday, but they can tell us with absolute certainty whatthe weather will be in ten years time.

so science is always correct, never wrong ? your the idiot.

you retard, where you say : "YOU explain the warming trend that has been

its the natural occuring changes in our world.

warming trend ???? you ok there ?

The Global climate is continually in a state of change. Its part of the Natural evolution

of our Planet and the Sun - Earth orbital relationship.

Global Warming or Cooling is not influenced by Climate change and I fail to

recognise how Science has been so falsified as to prove this.

We continually are brainwashed by those on the left of Politics and the

Environmentalists via the Mainstream Media into believing their conspiracy. A review

of a vast number of Scientific Studies and Papers printed in the various Scientific

Journals prove there is no connection.

The historical record of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide claimed by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change {IPCC} has been widely used by the

Environmental Movement in an attempt to force Governments to reduce Green House

Gas Emission. Professor Ernst Beck of Muran - Goeg in Germany, proves the IPCC

falsified and misconstrued the pre 1957 CO2 levels measured from Ice Cores and

ignored more than 90,000 direct measurements by Chemical Analysis from 1857 to

1957. Their sole aim was to prove that CO2 concentrations have been increasing with

the progress of human industrial civilization. Becks research confirms a wealth of

previous investigations, which clearly prove the IPCC cherry picked its data in an

attempt to stop global industrialization in the developed world and prevent any

development in third world countries or face extreme heat and melting icecaps. Beck

further proved the Kyoto Treaty on greenhouse gas reduction is based on scientific

fraud and violates the laws of the Universe, and does not recognise the well

established and accepted determination of climate by the cyclical variations of the

Sun- Earth orbital relationship and in the Suns heat output. Greenhouse Gas emissions

actually protect the Earth by forming a blanket in the Stratosphere and bouncing off

the thermal heat produced by the sun and other radionuclides. Without the greenhouse

effect the near surface air temperature would be -18 degrees C and not 15 degrees C

as it is now. The most important among these Greenhouse Gases is Water Vapour,

which is responsible for about 96 to 99 % of the greenhouse effect.

no one wrote: ...

...

Fr3udian slip? :)

-- Scientists [and kooks] are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I have no tolerance for ambiguity. -- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100

[Change of story:] CORRECTION: True science, (remember that?) can be trusted, but this "science" is ALL LIES! -- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 19 Feb 2011 14:46 +1100

That is part of it, but it goes deeper than that, if you control resources, food, water, power, you control everyone, decide who gets and doenst get them etc. That is the main thing. From that you can have as much money as you want, and use anyone any way you want.

=A0but

...

at

ce

**Indeed. The warming we are experiencing will be crap. Of course, if you mean "crap" in the same sense that Tony Abbott meant crap, then you are as big a scientific ignoramous as he is. **Nup. It was predicted more than 100 years ago. Sadly, those predictions are proving to be factual. **Nup. The government does not really want to bring in a carbon tax. **Wanna bet?

The "wether" (sic) for next Tuesday will be (for Sydney):

Min - 10 Max - 18 Partly cloudy. Scattered showers. Light winds.

The accuracy for a prediction for next Tuesday is likely to be about 60%.

However, none of this means diddly squat. Weather is not climate. Climate change predictions relate to general shifts in climate, not specific day to day numbers.

but they can tell us with absolute certainty whatthe

**No, they cannot. They can tell us what the CLIMATE will be in 50 or 100 years, IF CO2 emissions continue to rise at the present rate. **Here's a suggestion:

BEFORE you start calling people idiots, I suggest you learn a little nettiquette, some grammar and spelling. Your ignorance is nothing short of breathtaking. Your posts suggest your intellect lies somewhere South of a 9 year old. That is nothing for you to be proud of.

That said: I'll play your game. Submit your science that proves the IPCC reports are incorrect.

-- Trevor Wilson

**And yet, despite repeated requests, you have not supplied a shred of science to support your claims, nor have you explained to Dr Ayers that he is wrong.

You, Tony Abbott and George Pell deserve each other.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

**Really? Got some proof of that?

**Really? Cite which data was fabricated.

**Yes, it is. The overwhelming amonut of scientific evidence supports the notion of AGW. Anyone who denies the overwhelming bulk of science can only be regarded as an idiot, or a religious ignoramous. Given that some of the most outspoken people happne to be Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin, George Pell and Monckton, it is only reasonable to assume that the Catholic Church has some kind of interest in promulgating a mistrust of good science. Given the history of the Catholics, this should surprise no one. **No response from you or PA on climate data I note.

SOP.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

** YOU made the claim.

But YOU have no idea what " science " is.

Cos you have no education, no insight and no clue.

.... Phil

**_I_ made no such claim. I simply accept the science, as presented here:

and by this man:

Here, OTOH, are your claims (that you have yet to substantiate):

--
"It (climatology) is no more a science than Scientology is.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed themselves
with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments, have never made
successful predictions about the future climate and are generally laughed at
by real scientists as obvious fakes and opportunists."

there IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE , ITS JUST THE NATURAL OCCURING CHANGES.

**OK, Mr Top Posting Moron, prove it.

Prove that anthropogenic CO2 is not responsible for the warming trend noted over the past 100 years.

Also note: Unless you can provide some scientific proof that the IPCC reports are 100% wrong, or that you are not a child, this will be my last response to you on this topic. I have no interest in carrying on an adult discussion with a child or a person with a severe learning disability.

-- Trevor Wilson

e

I would also suggest he has been indoctrinated into this in a similar way to how these religious cults (including Jim Jones) indoctrinate their "followers" to strictly follow their crackpot ideals.

I can remember years back this was a big thing and there were lots of documentaries over time showing how much time and effort was needed to "deprogram" these people from this crap.

We should also note the sort of dangerous fanatics involved in the AGW movement who advocate killing large portions of the world population, show graphic advertisements with children in class being blown up and their guts going all over their classmates for not wanting to reduce carbon, (This is "child abuse material" and should be prosecuted as such, especially since it seems our courts view nude cartoons of the Simpsons are child abuse material) and want people arrested, charged and jailed for speaking out against AGW. To me this sounds like a Nazi party on steroids.

Note that Trevors only defense (apart from linking to the discredited IPCC) is to claim that anyone that doesn't share his views, then it is because of a religious belief, or is a moron, or paid off by some oil company, when in reality big oil is actively pushing for the carbon tax.

I suppose he goes to Alan Bond and Christopher Skase to learn about corporate ethics ?

64% of Australians in the "Telegraph" poll are morons. liars etc according to Trev. "have an IQ of room temperature". I would doubt that people of that IQ could even read and understand much in the newspaper (rather than pictures) much less form an opinion or make a vote on a website

ou

as

ns

%.

te

y 00

of

a C

g-...

g

That is right. has been shown many times that the climate was changing like this long before there were any widespread carbon emissions.

**Irrelevant. The climate in the past has changed. Sometimes, under the influence of CO2 and sometimes not. RIGHT NOW, our climate is changing due to the influence of high CO2 emissions.

Sheesh!

It's really not that difficult to understand.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote: ...

Sounds like projection to me. :)

...

I'm afraid if X hasn't done Y by now, there is no point expecting same. While my early childhood experience persuaded me that "anyone can do science" (indeed, some of the teachers tried to encourage this view) it turns out not to be the case. Humans are always trying to fool themselves about something and there is also that "optimism bias" the psychologists talk about -- wanting to beleive the best case without regard to its probability.

No, "doing science" needs a pretty unusual and brutally honest approach to all topics. And that's rather unusual, as it turns out (even among "scientists" :).

But there's also another idea. "Seeing is believing". Not quite as powerful as the usual optimisim bias (sometimes characterised by the phrase "eyes wired shut").

Simple plots with some statistical figuring (adjustment for nastiness in the data that might otherwise falsely say something is significant when it actually is not) shows that "unusual weather conditions" in Australia have become more common since records began.

The "conditions" chosen by scientists are not subject to the usual population growth confounding factors (e.g. "dollar cost of storm damage" simply grows

1-2% per year due to inflation, and maybe another 1-2% because of incraseses in population density, and maybe another 1-2% because of the keeping up with the Jonese factor).

Like "number of consecutive days with a daily max temp over 30 C". Or "number of days in a year with less than 1 mm of dain per day".

These data are plotted at:

--
[Some n00b can't tell the diff between HTML and binary:]
Why have you posted binaries to a text-only newsgroup, fuck wit?
-- Gillard Lies , 18 Feb 2011 22:57 -0800 (PST)
I'll concede that my use of "binary" was obscure... incorrect if it
makes you happy.
-- Gillard Lies , 19 Feb 2011 00:55 -0800 (PST)