OT GW

By "discuss" I assume you'll give me reasons as to why every one I may offer up is wrong, regardless of who it is and what credentials they may have.

I'd also assume that if the world's most eminent climatologist was to make a public statement claiming that their modelling was flawed and the climate situation isn't as dire as we've been led to believe you'd suggest that they'd been "got at" by some organisation and they were a crank.

Don't worry Trev. I don't expect such a thing will ever happen. If it did *millions* of dollars of research funding would suddenly evaporate, and we can't have that :)

Really? I must have blinked and missed them.

Yes. Lets.

Bzzzt. *Plenty* of dispute. Just none that you're prepared to accept :)

Uh-huh.

Lol :) Mythbusters :)

The definitive scientific research team :)

Nasty.

Bugger.

The ultimate "gift that keeps on giving" if you will....

dispute.

Interesting.

Nicely summed up there Trev.

But here's the thing that there's no getting around for me: For all that "indisputable fact", why is the "science" so uncertain about the effect?

Okay, try this on for size for a moment, and look at the issue from a layman's perspective.

Here we have a situation whereby data has been collected over a period of years. That data has been examined by people who are experts in the field and has lead to some theories, but no one can say for sure what the effect, if any, will be. In fact we can't even get universal agreement amongst the experts themselves. Yet we're advised that there is a issue that needs to be dealt with, and we should change the way we do things today (read -> Spend squillions of dollars) to adopt a "just in case" policy rather than leave that "issue" (if any) for future generations to deal with.

Do you see a problem with any of this Trevor?

What, guilt by association?

Just because my neighbour and I might not like the taste of Broccoli doesn't mean we have anything else in common.

I have had the experience of brushing up against it a number of times. Firstly to become a number in branch stacking(modern term). Secondly when a community organisation became the battle ground between different factions(nasty for employees). Also been educational to follow the careers of the three party names iaround at the time.

Lastly a lot of the people we interacted with locally were in either party and occassionally you have a quiet chat. We also witnessed the disappearance of the labour party members from handing out at the local booths over the years.

Various reasons, especially when they had an enormous rusted on block. It takes a few decas for the rust scales to get scrapped off. Also, they did have some capable leadership who looked ahead and not at their polls.

You might be right about Abbott. Keep in mind that the Greens are actually replacing some of their old supporters. The "tree huggers"(Kumbi Ah mob[sp?]) have become disenchanted that it is now just like any other party.

Lol, is it that long ago that people have forgotten aout the thrice risen souffle? Wasn't that Keating about Howards chances?

Or, think of it this way:

Let's say the scientists convince Exxon, Alan Jones, George Pell, Nick Minchin and the others that AGW is a real thing and that CO2 reduction schemes must be enacted immediately.

Their job is done. No more money for the scientists. For the scientists to succeed, then they'll put themselves out of a job.

So, according to your logic, it is the deniers that are the problem. It is Alan Jones, Nick Minchin, Exxon and the others that keep all these evil scientists in work.

In fact we can't even get universal

Yet we're advised that there

-- Trevor Wilson

That'll do you. I'm bored now.

Why did you want me to jump through hoops, when you already knew the answers?

-- Trevor Wilson

Are you sure that Exxon doesn't have any green energy investments?

-- Trevor Wilson

No, says nothing about the organisations position.

No, says nothing about the organisations position.

No, says nothing about the organisations position.

No, says nothing about the organisations position.

No, says nothing about the organisations position. States the position of others.

No, says nothing about the organisations position.

No, says nothing about the organisations position. States the position of others.

Absolutely no support whatsoever of your claim!

Absolutely no support whatsoever of your claim!

Reaching new lows, you brand the personal opinion of a columnist, talking about the UK academy as substantiaing your claim of the Canadian Academy telling us its position.

Laughable to see what masqeraudes as logic and fact in your head.

This is not the view of the Hungarian Academy of Science on the matter at hand. It is a working paper that analyzes the impact of the EU

This would appear to be a particularily foolish attempt to pretend support of your position.

You have not even found the following organisations; Royal Society of Canada, Royal Danish Acadeny [sic] of Sciences and Letters, The Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences,

Offers no support for your claim.

Completely supports your claim of the Swedish Academy.

States a 66% chance of anthropogenic warming. This is not "most likely". Claim denied.

So, you cited 17 specific examples and claimed more, and the grand total of substantiation that you have provided is ONE.

This is a complete fail.

You must withdraw your claim immediately, if you wish to demonstrate that you possess any integrity.

and inadequate, it seems.

For someone who continually demands ("cite") proof of everything that anyone else says to you, you are remarkably blase about your own obligations to substantiate your claims.

In fact, your demands are so intense as to be rude, yet you think nothing of making huge claims and offering utterly inadequate support for them.

There is little point in my stating "bullshit!" to you. It would be discourteous and it would demonstrate nothing.

The courteous thing to do is to ask you to substantiate your claim. As you are obliged to do. It is also wise, for my knowledge of the position of the organisations that you claim support your position may be obsolete.

I might well have learned something. On this occasion, giving you the benefit of the doubt has not been rewarded, but I won't let that dissuade me from remaining open to any relevant evidence you can provide in future.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yeah, of the "they`re out there to get us" novel....

Well, no pollis are standing up ad shoutng their turn, so of course they will shift donations to those who do. That is why companies like this make donations; to keep things the way they are.

Interesting, given the rather lengthy discussions we have had on this topic in the past.

Lol :) Regards, Noddy. ============================================================ Only to be always outdone by you two suckholes.

DAVO

These are your words, are they not? -

"Howard didn't choose Asylum seeckers [sic], but sold it outright. He also created the current problem by going to war in Iran and Afghanistan."

Really up to you to explain that.

You shouldn't engage him when he repeatedly throws the same red herring. Delete and ignore it, it is intended to throw you off the scent.

Get your hand of it, Trevor.

Really, what a load of s*it.

This thread seem to have hit some buttons, when I originally started it, it was because the news reports all day had been about the last one hundred years of measurements at Pinchgut in Sydney harbour not bearing out the government propaganda on the subject

What an absurd demand.

I have read the reports. All too often, what you say about them and reality are somewhat divergent.

Demonstrating this to you has resulted in a conspicuous silence instead of a reasoned rebuttal.

Most medical care in Australia is not free.

No such freedom, what a nonsense.

No such freedom, what a nonsense.

fee for service.

fee for service

fee for service

It is nonsensical to claim that all of that is due to taxation.

You are being rather irrational.

A massive portion of scientists with massive amounts of evidence pointing to it.

They have their

Theories are not guesses.

The evidence is not in your favour, flat-earther.