OT GW

What's it got to with Howard's chances? (Lazarus with a triple bypass according to Keating.) Labor's problems now go far deeper than leadership... credibility and relevance just for starters!

--
John H

I think it is getting like that for all of them . They f*ck up everything for us, but help their mates and we are forced to pay for it. I don't really see a point in having Government a lot more and more.

Weally Twevor!?! Well, ya weally fooled me with your constant references to Alan Jones, George Pell and Nick Minchin in virtually every reply of yours in this thread!

If it's so massive, where is that "evidence" hiding? Correlation is not proof of causation.

Educated they may be, but they are still guesses.

Adoption of the scientific philosophy as per Popper (Falsifiability) abandons the arrogance of certainty. The basis of modern science is that it invites guesses which are formulated as theories. Theories are then tested against observations. That is how e.g. we have quantum mechanics and can reap the rewards.

The theories aren't proven to be "correct" if they fit obeservations; they are considered to not yet be falsified.

--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
 X   against HTML mail     | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \  and postings          |  --HL Mencken

Funny how you always choose to divert discussion away from ior ignore the threads where you don't want to deal with reality. Where you firmly planted both feet in your mouth.

You appear to think yourself not answerable for your comments. Perhaps non compus mentis?

--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
 X   against HTML mail     | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \  and postings          |  --HL Mencken

Manufactured evidence will say whatever the manufacturer tells it to do, (of those paying the manufacturers)

That's exactly what the deniers are relying on, manufactured evidence and paychecks from the polluters for spreading it.

Much more trustworthy than the uneducated guesses and outright nonsense put forward by the deniers.

I'd err on the side of caution, particularly as it's pretty obvious that we are hellbent on destroying this planet.

And millions of hits for Britney Spears doesn't make her a musician.

History repeats...

The correct answer is probably not! Depending of course on whose trickery you happen to believe. ;)

The simple fact is that any trend will always be superimposed on other variables that drive temperature over the short term, such as ENSO and volcanic eruptions. The article I previously cited for Trevor's benefit supports an upward trend and is well worth a read.

The usual trick is to simply plot the global annual means and draw a line through them, which averages out the variables over time (individual years taken in isolation mean very little). The trick used here is to factor out the variables (there's a link to the complete original paper within the article)....

It's particularly interesting in as much as it hasn't been disputed by the usual sceptics, at least not as far as I'm aware. Nor does it appear to support the IPCC guestimate of 0.2° C per decade... probably because it's based on real data and not some crackpot climatologist's model (the author is a meteorologist).

--
John H

is

at

Might be a good project for SC, a weather station that can log this data over a long period and export it to a PC. Give it a few years and we will be able to see for ourselves.

They are NOT PRIVATE emails. Emails sent in the conduct of one's work or using the facilities of one's employer are the property of the corporation; unless that corportation provides a facility for the conduct of PRIVATE emails.

If the corporation has a requirement to provide information under law, then they must supply that information. A university with research funded by government has that obligation.

How do you classify "corrupt"? Does it include passively playing the game? A very LUCRATIVE game.

It's in the emails. They take less time to read than an IPCC Assessment Report and the opinions expressed therein are startlingly frank about their uncertainties.

You don't seem to understand that those are BUREAUCRATIC definitions, not scientific.

Over a time scale of 10,000 years.

If we collectively put $1,000,000 into an interest-bearing account, then that would pay for all the costs of "relocation". In the past, it was called "migration" when people moved because the weather was consistently unbearable.

CO2 has nothing to do with "acid rain"

CO2 has nothing to do with asbestos.

CO2 has nothing to do with lead "poisoning" from exhaust gases.

THREE attempts to distract from the fact that CO2 is NOT a control knob for global temperature. Your inability to concentrate argument on the subject matter indicates a lack of depth of understanding.

You have failed to cite just ONE credible published paper that demonstrates how CO2 substantially controls global temperature; let alone our meagre CO2 emissions.

Bollocks. There is NO credible evidence of that in the real world. Pre-history shows temperature varying WIDELY with CO2 levels far higher than even the most catastrophist predictions from the IPCC.

In the real world; CO2 levels respond to temperature change. Not the other way around.

--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
 X   against HTML mail     | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \  and postings          |  --HL Mencken

Look for DDT wallpaper for childrens rooms to kill nasty flies and such. I'm sure it was in/on our boomer baby food too.

Al

- I don't take sides. It's more fun to insult everyone.

This?

Al

--
I don't take sides. 
It's more fun to insult everyone.

You deny the other side a few cherries?

Al

--
I don't take sides. 
It's more fun to insult everyone.

Too bad you didn't have that ethical sense when you accused various parties of being paid shills for oil companies with exactly no evidence to support your claims.

--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

So, your cited figure of 95% certainty turns out to be bullshit, according to your new tune.

However, it is even worse than that

"It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)" - Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeCore Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds.) IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. pp 104

What that means is this, there is a 66% probability of AGW.

Correct me if I am wrong, Trevor, but you have been claiming that AGW is "a fact", and you have cited a 95% confidence from the IPCC AR4.

But the actual value that they gave was 66%.

There is chasm between what you claim the science says, and what it says, and this chasm is most apparent when you give specific sources, allowing the disparity to be nailed, so to speak.

To refresh your memory about your claims:

"**Conclusive proof may never be reached. In the 1970s, we were at around 70% certainty. Now we are at 95% certainty. IOn ten years, we may be at (say) 98%. In 20 years, 99%. In another 50 years, 99.5%. In

100 years, 99.9%. It is an asymptotic curve. 100% certainty may never be reached. Such is the nature of these things.

Assuming 100% will never be reached, at what point do YOU consider the theory acceptable? 96%? 97%? 98%?"

[66% is well short of the certainty that you claim]

"**I did not say: "95% of climatologists". I said that the climatologists were 95% certain that AGW theory was valid."

Again, we see the disparity between what you claim they say, and your cited source, which actually gives a 66% certainty.

You claim to have read the 4th IPCC report, but the report consistently does not support your claims, least of all your claims as to what it says.

--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

You and Trev seem to have something in common. You both seem to believe that denial is a one way street.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

All due respect to you, Clocky, but the consensus value only gives it a 66% confidence, which is far from massive amounts of evidence.

--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.