how ignorant do you have to be to think that humans havent contributed to bloody climate change? Why do Australians just not seem to care about the future of our planet? I am a 16 year old educated girl from Sydney NSW and right now I am finding it hard to call myself a proud Australian. The fact that people are refusing to even listen to the reasons behind the carbon tax baffles me- and shows me just where most of everyone's priorities lie. Greed has destroyed the human species- now the world.
"There is much to be said for an emissions trading scheme. It was, after all, the mechanism for emission reduction ultimately chosen by the Howard government. It enables an increasing market price to be set for carbon through capping volumes of emissions."
A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. In the past 10000 yrs, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained relatively stable. However, human CO2 emissions in that last 100 years have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. Eg, as the oceans absorb CO2, which leads to acidification of marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperature.
I ride my bike to uni, i grow my own veggies on the balcony of my apartment, i pay a little extra for green energy, and I don't own a car. Why can't all you do the same? If you wanna have a cry about how much the cost of living is going to be affected by the carbon tax, live differently. simple. the way you live in not environmentally friendly or sustainable, the party has to come to an end sometime might as well be now. God I hate bogans.
fuck i hate pretentious, sanctimonious, and politically-correct celebrities like Cate Blanchett! darling if you wanna be an actor, good luck to you, but don't think that because of yr fame as an actor, you can preach your left wing environmentalist dribble, to hard working Australians, who will ultimately have to pay for this ridiculous tax, you on the other hand, can swan off back to Hollywood, make another film, and earn more than 100 of us tax payers collectively in a few months!
@TheItchyFetus what do mean 'a choice/' A choice to pay for the ad? You haven't paid for the ad, unless you're a member or supporter of one of the community organisations that have run the Say Yes campaign. You certainly get a choice on whether you think a price on pollution will help Australia's future :)
The world's largest oil company (ExxonMobil) is continuing to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial.
When propagandists like Comrade @radiantcold refer to temperatures "on record", they are (quite deliberately) cherry-picking the time frame of the (highly dubious) instrument record dating from 1850. To see how current temperatures compare over a FAR more relevant time frame...
Google this:
SBVOR: Temperatures Over Time - Part II
And, Google this:
SBVOR: Recent Hysteria - Arctic Now Warmest in 2,000 years
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators that we should look for. Whilst its natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible;snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even sea temperatures themselves. A 2010 study included 10 key indicators, and every one of them is moving in the direction expected of a warming globe.
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
Over the past 10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures.
The world's largest oil company (ExxonMobil) is continuing to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial.
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.
"Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2."
Sure, that's the blind assumption built into all of the demonstrably invalidated IPCC computer models. But, as is so often the case with AGW theory, observational data have demonstrated this ASSumption to be not merely incorrect, but entirely upside down.
Google this:
SBVOR: Holy Grail of Climate Change - Deception Continues
A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
The "scientific consensus" argument is the biggest lie of all.
Virtually all scientists agree that man made CO2 has (extremely minor) heat trapping properties. That does NOT mean they all agree with the IPCC. In FACT, a large majority of scientists do NOT agree with the IPCC.
Google this (and find a more detailed exposé on the biggest lie of all):
SBVOR: Meteorologists are (rightly) skeptical on CAGW
@sbvor all your "sources" are pretty much obscure and dubious links to your own site. Hardly reliable and an embarrassingly bad argument. I suggest you silence yourself to avoid further humiliation. You're really quite idiotic and aren't doing yourself favours with your unintelligible drivel. Come back when you understand what science is.
On my site, you will find direct links to the directly cited peer reviewed science which demonstrates that NONE of the metrics are even remotely close to falling outside the bounds of natural variation.
The ONLY thing which makes the current interglacial warming period any different from the previous six interglacial warming periods is that this one is COOLER than ALL of the previous six interglacial warming periods.
So, in your world, all peer reviewed science which contradicts the canon of your CAGW religious cult is deemed to be "pseudo-scientific vitriol"? Scary.
The IPCC lead authors are experts in their field, instructed to fairly represent the full range of the up-to-date, peer-reviewed literature. Consequently, the IPCC reports tend to be cautious in their conclusions. Comparisons to the most recent data consistently finds that climate change is occurring more rapidly and intensely than indicated by IPCC predictions.
1) The Hockey Stick (once the central IPCC argument) is merely the biggest and most visible falsification. Falsification takes many forms - some more subtle than others.
Google this:
SBVOR: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data
2) The (extremely minor) heat trapping properties of man made CO2 were never enough to whip up any concern. The water vapor response has always been the linchpin.
Google this:
SBVOR: Holy Grail of Climate Change - Advantage, Skeptics
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
To all you silly deluded fantasy-land dwelling people of 'SayYesAustralia' WAKE UP!!!!!!!!! You can't save the planet with some ridiculous carbon Tax, or ETS.. you can't even help the planet with a tax on carbon or any other ''pollutant'', The earth has been cooling and warming in a constant cycle since its creation,. who the F**K do you people think you are, in believing that a dodgy political fix and some lame tax can save the planet!?? time to grow up and wake up people!!
Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.
A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. In the past 10000 years, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained relatively stable. However, human CO2 emissions in that last 100 years have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. Eg, as the oceans absorb CO2, which leads to acidification of marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures.
@sbvor Oh so the mainstream public with idiots such as yourself is more reliable than the research of the world's leading scientists? Proves how much of a buffoon you are. Opinion polls don't legitimise a policy, judge it on its principles rather than how vocal right-wing and backward conservatives like you are.
Because the climate never stops changing, Climate Change is the PERFECT scam for corruptocrats like Al Gore. No matter how much money we waste or how much power we give to them, the climate will continue to change and they will continue to demand more power and more money.
Fortunately, however, the public is no longer buying what they're selling (and, our young fool @mattt1994 has hitched himself to a cult already in its death throes).
Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.
Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.
To be more technically precise, I should have -- in my previous comment -- referenced the current phase of "all interglacial warming periods" (the phase which is at or near what is called the climatic optimum of an interglacial period).
@sbvor You can believe what ever you want, but in the end, I am the one with the consensus and to deny that is foolishness. 90% of media are saying climate change exists, 90% of politicians, 90% of scientists say climate change exists. Who do you think the average person is going to believe, you or the passionate student who advocates for a more sustainable world for future generations. I think we both know the answer.
You have been indoctrinated to falsely accuse me of denying the climate ever changes. The climate (like everything else) never stops changing. That said, we are currently enjoying some of the most stable climatic conditions this planet has ever seen - this is typical of ALL interglacial warming periods.
You want to see some REAL (and perfectly NATURAL) climate change? Google this:
Purely political propagandists have always targeted the young. Why? Because the young are naive, gullible, inexperienced, easily deceived and easily manipulated.
In this thread, you claim you are 17 years old. On your profile page, you claim you are 24 years old. If we cannot trust you to be honest about your age, how can we trust anything you say?
@sbvor So i'm assuming you think that the Earth is cooling than? Because even if what you are saying is true, it does not explain the warming, Arctic ice melt and extreme weather events, right?
1) The peer reviewed science demonstrates that there are NO climate change related metrics which are even remotely close to being outside the bounds of natural variation. Google this:
SBVOR: Climate Change Science - an Overview
2) The recent 30 year warming phase is over. According to NOAA, it ended in 1998. According to the infamous center of the ClimateGate scandal (Phil Jones), it ended (statistically speaking) in 1995.
@sbvor Lol I don't have time for this. In between replying to your comments, I'm writing a climate change editorial to be featured in my local paper and preparing for a tour to speak to 10,000 high students about the urgency of the climate crisis as a result of my training with Al Gore. And i'm only 17 years old ; ) haha i'll put your username in my inbox and I'll have a nice laugh in 20 years when it turns out i'm right : )
The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators that we should look for. Whilst it's natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible; snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves. A 2010 study included 10 key indicators, and every one of them is moving in the direction expected of a warming globe.
@sbvor Still didn't answer my question. Who would possibly want climate change to be true!!! The truth is it's your word against every National Academy of Science in the world. Isn't it obvious who's right... not you.
The question is not who "would possibly want climate change to be true". The question is how can mere science compete with $100 BILLION in utterly corrupt and purely political government "research" funds and tens of TRILLIONS in utterly corrupt and purely political government "mitigation" funds?
@sbvor Here's what I'll never understand about deniers. People with money control the media. The world's richest are oil executives and technology inventors. The last thing the wealthy want is climate change to exist because it will result in huge changes to their businesses. Why would they invent a hoax that will undoubtedly hurt them in the short term. Who benefits from climate change being true???????
A carbon tax will do nothing but harm for all (except for the crony capitalist so-called "green" energy scammers in bed with the fascists of the so-called "Green" party).
Fortunately, a majority of Aussies know this. Unfortunately. the fascists running the Aussie government don't care one whit about the Aussie people or what they think (same as the USA).
@sbvor 53% of respondents thought they would be worse off?! Sometimes people need to forget about their selfishness and short term gains and realize that this carbon tax will help the environment and Australia's economy in the long run.
To all of the Australians viewing this: You should all be lucky you live in a country that takes climate change seriously! In Canada, we treasure our oil sands and protect them from any type of regulation meanwhile their creating as much GHG emissions as the country of Switzerland. Please set an example to the world Australia, this carbon tax gives so many people hope!!!
@mattt1994 Learn how to use "their" and 'they're" correctly and then we'll take you seriously. Canada is also known as America Junior and you should mind your own affairs. When you become a citizen, work and pay taxes here, you can comment. This excludes those commie green scum who happen to citizens, but probably don't work very often or pay too much tax - they just ought to be locked up.
@Enricom23 Aha I did use the wrong they're oops. Thanks for the grammar lesson ; ) but I think you need a geography lesson. The greenhouse effect proven in 1896 is a law that states that co2 effects the temperature of the planet. 98% of climate scientists believe in man-made global warming. THIS IS NOT a country by country issue it's a global issue, so I have every right to applaud or criticize Australia's climate actions.
@mattt1994 I see you're a budding David Copperfield, pulling all sorts of magical things out of thin air. For example, that 98% of climate scientists believe in man made climate change. I've never seen such a figure. Most of those dummies are also on government payrolls. Still, you seem like a nice person - unlike the rabid leftoids trying to jam their doom and gloom scenario down our collective throat, so points for that.
@Enricom23 The Washington Post, NY TImes, Guardian, and Bild all support the 98% to 2%. Lol thanks for the compliment, I don't believe in bickering I enjoy friendly debates much better ; )
@sbvor im pretty sure the polls taken are crappy biased ones from unreliable and extremely biased media sources involving anywhere from 300-1200 people
Those who are not as ideologically blinkered as you KNOW there is nothing even remotely unusual about current temps or current trends. Not ONE metric is even REMOTELY close to being outside the bounds of natural variation.
SBVOR — you keep on screaming away here into your own echo chamber. I'm done. I'm off to spread the knowledge that even someone with an arts and humanities background can understand Cherry-Picking Straw-Man attacks if they bother to read the peer-reviewed work. Your blog is full of crap and lies and quotes out of context. Have fun ignoring one of the most fascinating scientific enterprises this civilization has ever embarked on! You're obsessed, you're full of it, but at least you're losing. Bye
@sbvor — if you have ANY respect for science you'll retract the retarded lie that "there is nothing even REMOTELY unusual about current temperatures".
The FACTS are that 2 the top 3 climate monitoring units on the planet — NASA and NOAA — have reported that 1998 is now the 3rd warmest year on record, behind 2005 and 2010 which tied equal first hottest years on record.
P.S.) The last time the Dims signed a budget into law was March 11, 2009 (well over 800 days ago).
Google this, pinhead:
"The Fiscal Year 2009 federal budget, signed into law by President Obama March 11"
I guess the Dims did not want to go on record as having supported the MASSIVELY irresponsible Dim spending spree as documented by the Bureau of Economic Analysis via the St. Louis Federal Reserve.
Since you're not an American, you have some excuse for being utterly ignorant of the fact that Congress (NOT the President) signs the checks and passes the budgets into law. Of course, for more than 800 days, the latest round of Dim tyrants were too busy spending to even bother to pretend to pass a budget.
You have absolute faith in peer reviewed science (unless that peer reviewed science contradicts the creed of your totalitarian political religious cult).
So, what you're really saying is that you have absolute FAITH (literally) in the creed of your totalitarian political religious cult.
You expect me to take seriously what Kevin Trenberth has to say @ RealClimate?
Dr. Spencer's paper was published in a peer reviewed journal.
If Comrade Trenberth finds fault in that paper, let him try to get his critique published in a peer reviewed journal.
Given the alarmist manipulation of the peer review process revealed by ClimateGate, Trenberth should have no problem getting his garbage published. Or, will he?
Who’s the “denialist” of peer reviewed science NOW?
You don't know one damn thing about Dr. Spencer's religious views (as IF they mattered) so stop pretending you do. I have looked. I have found NOTHING which even BEGINS to describe Dr. Spencer's religious views (as IF they mattered).
Dr. Spencer wrote ONE science based paper suggesting that Intelligent Design was not indefensible. NOTHING in that paper revealed ANYTHING about Dr. Spencer's own views.
1) How many times must I remind you that your Wikipedia based appeal to authority is unmitigated bullshit on countless levels?
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Meteorologists are (rightly) skeptical on CAGW
2) Neither Dr. Spencer nor I are so-called "denialists" of science -- YOU ARE! You! The totalitarian MORON “educated” in the “Humanities” & UTTERLY IGNORANT of science! YOU, who can ONLY appeal to authority!
@SBVOR so given your capacity to cherry-pick out the things that matter to you and then just call other names like "Stalinist" etc, I'm wondering if this is worth it? You're completely obsessed with disproving what EVERY NATIONAL SCIENCE ACADEMY ON THE PLANET HAS AGREED UPON. The basic physics of Co2 are indisputable. Look up Beer's Law and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy. We KNOW what Co2 does, and by how much it does it!
@ SBVOR I wasn't attacking Roy Spencer's faith — in many ways I share it. (Without the Creationist bit). I'm not prejudiced about that at all.
What should raise alarm bells is your capacity to sing his praises simply because he sings to the same songbook of Denial as you. He's preaching to your choir. He has signed a theological statement that SPECIFICALLY PRECLUDES accepting climate change. This compromises his objectivity.
One moronic, power crazed politician praises another moronic, power crazed politician & both are praised by a power crazed moron "educated" in the "Humanities" (you).
All this proves WHAT?
Worse than that, this power crazed moron "educated" in the "Humanities" is so blindly arrogant as to believe he has all the answers for the energy sector and wants his ignorance imposed through any available tyranny?
The world's most powerful conservative leader says go for it! Have a carbon tax, it is the right policy!
"BRITAIN'S Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, has personally congratulated Julia Gillard on her carbon tax policy in a letter penned from the desk of 10 Downing Street."
Personally I don't care if they NATIONALIZE energy as long as they build the nukes, stop mining the coal, and get the JOB DONE!
Ice mass loss is occuring at an accelerated rate in Greenland, Antarctica and globally from inland glaciers. Arctic sea ice is also falling at an accelerated rate. The exception to this ice loss is Antarctic sea ice which has been growing despite the warming Southern Ocean. This is due to local factors unique to the area.
"Year round ice IS 'normal' for this current geological period with: [blah, blah, blah]"
Comrade! You forgot about the position of our solar system within the Milky Way galaxy! THAT is the mother of all climate cycles! THAT is the most likely cause of each and every one of our multi-million year ice ages (including the present multi-million year ice age).
@sbvor I didn't forget about the Galaxy hypothesis which is very interesting (but seems to me to require quite a bit of faith). It's simply irrelevant. We're not talking about multi-million year cycles here but global warming that is occurring over decades. I thought that was self-evident. Climate cycles that might, or might not, be occurring over tens or hundreds of millions of years are not the issue. *Sudden* changes that require a massive civilization scaled response are!
The warming effect from more CO2 greatly outstrips the influence from changes in the Earth's orbit or solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels.
Comrade @radiantcold mindlessly regurgitates all the usual hackneyed clichés, half truths and flat out lies related to global warming hysteria.
I have -- long ago -- thoroughly debunked EVERY one of these clichés in a single comprehensive post complete with directly cited and directly linked to peer reviewed science.
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators that we should look for. Whilst it's natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible; snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves. A 2010 study included 10 key indicators, and every one of them is moving in the direction expected of a warming globe.
@sbvor ////counter-scientific hysteria mongering.//// You keep claiming the moral high-ground. I'm wondering if you are pathological? Suffering from delusions of grandeur? (I'm trying to smash some self-awareness into you.) Do I really need to remind you that I'm the one that accepts the scientific work of every National Science Academy on the planet, and YOU are the one that screams paranoid conspiracy theories against it?
@sbvor ///As if this matters, I am a lifelong agnostic who embraces that old-fashioned concept of religious tolerance./// Your worldview matters in other ways, but is not necessarily relevant here, unless it specifically precludes you accepting the peer-reviewed science. Roy Spencer's faith DOES specifically preclude that. Does your ultra-right wing zeal qualify as a faith? Do you believe in it so much it has lost meaning as an economic tool and become your meaning for life? If so that matters.
It is said that those who have the science on their side argue the science, those who do not have the science on their side attack the messenger.
You cannot refute Dr. Spencer's science so you attack his alleged religious views? Typical Stalinist.
Looking beyond the Wikipedia lies, I have never found ANY clear evidence of Dr. Spencer's religious views (as if that mattered). The ONLY thing I found is a science based argument suggesting Intelligent ID is not indefensible.
Spencer and Braswell's study uses an overly simplistic climate model, their conclusions rely on using one particular data set, and their paper does not provide enough information to duplicate the study. The paper is fundamentally flawed and has no scientific merit.
"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted... The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted."
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Holy Grail of Climate Change - Advantage, Skeptics
By taxing carbon, Aussie political tyrants have created their own Waterloo.
@sbvor That satellite work was submitted by Roy Spencer — a creationist. He cannot accept climate change because he cannot accept an old earth. You're only quoting him and crowing over his work because it agrees with your own political biases. Tell us all, are you a Creationist as well?
No year round ice is the NORMAL condition for this planet! Year round ice is ABNORMAL.
The only reason we currently have year round ice anywhere is because we are currently experiencing one of the three COLDEST ice ages of the last 600 million years. Once we emerge from this ice age, there will (once again) be no year round ice ANYWHERE!
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators we should look for. Whilst it's natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible; snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves. A 2010 study included 10 indicators, and every one of them is moving in the direction expected of a warming globe.
@sbvor Year round ice IS "normal" for this current geological period with:
* the sun at the current luminosity
* the continents where they are
* the volcanoes at their lower level of emissions than in higher activity periods
* the atmosphere at the pre-industrial carbon emissions.
This is the climate the human species evolved in. This is the climate our agriculturally dependent civilization evolved in. You are simply WRONG that having ice is not normal for NOW.
@sbvor Year round ice Part 2. You really suck at Denialism SBVOR. Give up. Go run home to mummy or scream at the walls. You're currently embarrassing yourself by saying "Catastrophic climate change is not happening" and then the next moment contradicting yourself by saying "Once we emerge from this ice age there will be no year round ice ANYWHERE!" as if that is a good thing. Phew, what a retard! You're talking about 7 billion people trying to eat in a world with half our agriculture gone.
@sbvor You still haven't substantively responded to why no single National Academy of Science sees the data the way you do, why the Radiative Forcing Equation shows stacks of energy being trapped in the atmosphere by Co2, why everything's melting, why the last decade WAS the warmest on record by the peer-reviewed science, why the Arctic is melting, why you're wrong and won't admit it, and why no real (non-Creationist) peer-reviewed science agrees with you.
2) It is very well documented that the highest concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the entire history of the planet coincided with the largest EXPLOSION of biodiversity in the entire history of the planet (the Cambrian Explosion).
Are you claiming CO2 causes BOTH extinction events AND biodiversity explosions? LOL! The new alarmist meme - CO2 causes EVERYTHING!
IPCC projections of a 0.18 to 0.59 meter rise in sea levels over the next 100 years are predicated upon false assumptions regarding the response of water vapor to the very tiny amount of directly induced warming caused by CO2. Increasingly, direct observations are proving these assumptions not merely wrong, but entirely upside down (meaning even the IPCC sea level projections are way too high).
Google this:
SBVOR: IPCC Computer Models vs. Direct Measurement
@sbvor I'm bored. You keep repeating the same old crap. Wikipedia is a great resource if you bother to look for the peer-reviewed references below! Denialist trolls like yourself NEVER concede a simple point, but I'm bigger than that. Co2 once SAVED life on earth during the Snowball Earth period. We nearly got locked in a permanent deep freeze. Most water froze 600 million years ago — there was no rain, all ice. But volcanoes emitting Co2 saved us. Co2 changes the climate! *Once* this was good.
@sbvor Snowball earth part 2: With the rain cycle frozen and locked down in ice, there was nothing to wash the Co2 out of the air. It built up to incredible levels. These super-high levels of Co2 saved life on earth! But look around buddy, we're not in a snowball earth now. It's about context. Rain is great for a drought stricken area, unless it comes in a flood. Context. Amounts. Appropriateness. Get it?
@sbvor Snowball earth 3: So AFTER the Snowball earth event the story is simpler. Warming = bad.
(Or are the Royal Society just a bunch of communists in on the conspiracy?)
"Our results provide the first clear evidence that global climate may explain substantial variation in the fossil record in a simple and consistent manner. Our findings may have implications for extinction and biodiversity change under future climate warming. "
Climate sensitivity can be calculated empirically by comparing past temperature change to natural forcings at the time. Various periods of Earth's past have been examined in this manner and find broad agreement of a climate sensitivity of around 3°C.
The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations. In fact, sea level is not only rising, but the rise is accelerating.
“The climatologists are telling us that if we KEEP going inthe same direction with fossil fuels, we'll have NO ICE on the planet and have sea-levels 65 meters higher.”
REALLY? Which stark raving mad lone wolf lunatic made that claim?
Even the loony tunes alarmists at the IPCC project only 7” to 23” (0.18 to 0.59 meters) of sea level rise in the next 100 years. See Table 3.1 on page 45 of this IPCC link:
@sbvor Re: sea levels. Don't rip my words out of context like some cheap parlour trick you retard! We were talking about the Royal Society's conclusions that super-greenhouse events of the past were bad for biodiversity, and that if we KEEP on the current paths and burn EVERY LAST SCRAP of Co2 in the atmosphere we could kick off feedbacks that in the *distant* future might see an ice-free earth again. I never mentioned a timeline you strawman idiot.
“5,500 years ago, the Arctic had substantially less summertime sea ice than today”
It is virtually certain that ALL of the Arctic sea ice routinely melted during EVERY summer during that timeframe. CO2 was NOT the cause! We are NOT capable of micromanaging climate change! CO2 is a VERY tiny bit player in that drama.
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
The politician (Christine Milne) who thinks she is qualified to determine (and dictate) what is scientifically sound journalism apparently has NO academic background in ANY branch of science.
The ABC says of her that:
"Prior to entering politics Christine taught English, History and Social Science in high schools"
Typical background for a "true believer" (just like Comrade @TheEclipsenow).
@sbvor I'm with Professor John Abrahams when he says that we shouldn't completely censor you mad tinfoil wearing psychopaths *every* time you rant rabid conspiracy theories. We should merely limit how long the media wastes listening to you. Just as we don't give the Flat Earth Society air time every time we accidentally show the Earth from space — so we shouldn't have to repeat your rabid nonsense every time real scientists talk about the climate.
You think your nuclear reactors could power electric cars and bring about your Green Tyranny Socialist Utopia?
You fucking MORON, if we all bought your stupid little electric cars, the world would run out of the rare earth metals required to build those electric cars in a matter of days.
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Green Cult Members vs. Sustainability
There is currently NO viable alternative to hydrocarbons!
So long as governments subsidize FAILURE, there NEVER WILL BE!
1) Obama's utterly FAILED "stimulus" cost FAR MORE than the Iraq war.
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act
2) Military spending is NOT what is bankrupting the USA, Entitlements are. EVERYBODY who is even REMOTELY informed and REMOTELY honest knows that and admits it (Dims included).
@sbvor Ah you funny little boy, the truth about the Iraq war really hurt didn't it? Oh well. Go ahead and foam at the mouth some more. Australia has a 1% higher tax / GDP rate and has what you would call 'socialized medicine'. Our medicine actually costs us 1% LESS per unit of Government spending, yet we cover the whole population for life threatening medicine. And we have a good welfare safety net. So even with a similar % tax and spending, we're not bankrupt are we? Go figure. ;-)
@sbvor America spends more than the next few nations combined on their military. So while you sit there foaming at the mouth as you rub yourself in peanut butter and scream at the walls at the unfairness of a world that allows Australia to operate a slightly higher safety net and yet not face your level of debt / Unit GDP, I'll just laugh at your assertions. You need to get off oil. You need more walkable New Urban towns and rail as even YOU have admitted the car culture is ULTIMATELY DEAD!
@sbvor And you can spare yourself the pain of typing "Google this, SBVOR rubs himself in peanut butter and has other filthy habits". Because I won't. I've been there and done that and found you to be a lying, cherry-picking Denialist bastard that simply doesn't tell the truth. About anything.
@sbvor Also, you don't know anything about Rare Earths and batteries do you?
1. "Despite their name, rare earth elements (with the exception of the radioactive promethium) are relatively plentiful in the Earth's crust, with cerium being the 25th most abundant element at 68 parts per million (similar to copper)." (From wiki)
2. They're working on carbon nanofibre battery replacements for rare earths
3. Your fear of EV's just confirms you've got money invested in business as usual.
Are the government funded alarmists at NOAA also "Denialists"? AGAIN, I quote NOAA:
“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”
There has been no warming since 1998 and, according to Phil Jones, no statistically significant warming since 1995.
@sbvor And re: ENSO you obsessive Denialist retard, try this: "The non-ENSO component of the trend explains 96% of the total trend and has a structure that is distinct from ENSO, including cooling in the South Pacific due to increased southeast trades, warming of the warm pool, and strengthening of the equatorial Pacific near-surface temperature gradient superimposed upon a uniform warming."
@sbvor ENSO Part 2: "The trends over the last 30 years remain though the interannual variability is slightly reduced (as you’d expect). The magnitude of the adjustment varies between +/-0.25ºC." Ooops! Forgot to share that with us did you?
Look, just scream at the walls or play the tuba badly. And take the blue tablets. No, not in that end, we don't eat through THAT hole do we? There, in the mouth, that's better.
The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.
There have been NO "super-greenhouse" periods. There are hot-house periods and ice-house periods. Each hot-house period is similar to another (same with ice-house periods) and there is NO correlation between hot-house periods and CO2!
Even the alarmists at NOAA know you're delusional. Quoting NOAA:
“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”
There has been no warming since 1998 and, according to Phil Jones, no statistically significant warming since 1995.
@sbvor "BTW, I AM a scientist" Yes, but the fact that even I, with a humanities background, can look at what you write and see glaring cherry-picked data that's ideologically driven — well let's just say that it doesn't bode well for your mental health, does it? 1998 was an El Nino year and I've even seen Denialist's at the Heartland institute warning against using the "No warming since 1998" myth. And I've alreadly googled that page, and commented, and found it wanting. Pinhead.
Mega-bureaucracies like the EU and the UN have been soooo darn beneficial that we need one uber-mega-bureaucracy to rule (and centrally plan) the whole damn planet, eh?
@sbvor Right wing Tea-party Denialist's like yourself are responsible for belief's such as "WMD's in Iraq". So instead of spending 2 Trillion on safe Gen3 nukes + EV's and Rail to get off coal and imported oil, you invaded Iraq. How'd that work out for your national debt? Still paying $600 billion a year to buy imported oil are we? Just the oil is $6 trillion a decade or your national debt paid off in 20 years. If you got off oil. But you'd keep them addicted. Pinhead.
@sbvor So basically America defies the only form of international law we have, the UN security council recommendations, and invades Iraq, find's no WMD's, and bankrupts itself in the process. And you tell me the UN is just a moronic mega-bureaucracy. If American's had only listened to the UN and put that $2 trillion towards getting off oil, you might be SAVING $6 TRILLION A DECADE by now! Oh the irony!
@sbvor "Why the HELL would we expect it to stop melting now?" We don't. Try to keep up with the science mate, we really don't. The climatologists are telling us that if we KEEP going in the same direction with fossil fuels, we'll have NO ICE on the planet and have sea-levels 65 meters higher. But yes, the earth HAS been hotter in the past due to continents being in different locations, Co2 from higher volcanism, etc. These periods were disastrous for life on earth!
While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.
“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”
There has been no warming since 1998 and, according to Phil Jones, no statistically significant warming since 1995.
@sbvor Still spamming with requests to google your blog? How utterly insane you are. I stand back in awe at your paranoid delusions that this is all a cult, a conspiracy. Your'e out there with those who think Obama is the anti-Christ. I am truly mind-numbingly AMAZED at your late night ranting about utter, utter, utterly myths and crap like "It all stopped in 1998". Will you retract that please, 2005 equaled it, and 2010 maybe even topped it. You're utterly fruity.
The Swindle was a collection of crude distortions in an elegant package. The data was misrepresented, the charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were designed to mislead. To cite just one example: the graph that purported to show that global temperatures had fallen between 1940 and 1975. Although it bore the label “NASA” it bore no resemblance to any NASA map of 20th century temperatures.
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.
A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. Over the past 10000 years, CO2 has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has direct effects on the environment. eg, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temps.
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.
how ignorant do you have to be to think that humans havent contributed to bloody climate change? Why do Australians just not seem to care about the future of our planet? I am a 16 year old educated girl from Sydney NSW and right now I am finding it hard to call myself a proud Australian. The fact that people are refusing to even listen to the reasons behind the carbon tax baffles me- and shows me just where most of everyone's priorities lie. Greed has destroyed the human species- now the world.
MargretDean 3 days ago
I want to punch that old bitch in the face when she says "strugggglssshing with bills"
MrRobotron666 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tony Abbott on 27 July 2009:
"There is much to be said for an emissions trading scheme. It was, after all, the mechanism for emission reduction ultimately chosen by the Howard government. It enables an increasing market price to be set for carbon through capping volumes of emissions."
radiantcold 4 months ago
This absolute bullshit! CO2 is NOT and never has been a pollutant! Read the FACTS, NOT what the UNIPCC wants to brainwash you with!!!
TheLoneStranger0 4 months ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@TheLoneStranger0
A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. In the past 10000 yrs, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained relatively stable. However, human CO2 emissions in that last 100 years have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. Eg, as the oceans absorb CO2, which leads to acidification of marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperature.
radiantcold 4 months ago
I ride my bike to uni, i grow my own veggies on the balcony of my apartment, i pay a little extra for green energy, and I don't own a car. Why can't all you do the same? If you wanna have a cry about how much the cost of living is going to be affected by the carbon tax, live differently. simple. the way you live in not environmentally friendly or sustainable, the party has to come to an end sometime might as well be now. God I hate bogans.
Spacenoodle 5 months ago
fuck i hate pretentious, sanctimonious, and politically-correct celebrities like Cate Blanchett! darling if you wanna be an actor, good luck to you, but don't think that because of yr fame as an actor, you can preach your left wing environmentalist dribble, to hard working Australians, who will ultimately have to pay for this ridiculous tax, you on the other hand, can swan off back to Hollywood, make another film, and earn more than 100 of us tax payers collectively in a few months!
ChaseTheDub 5 months ago 6
Don't even know why they wasted tax payers money on this ad. We don't even get a fucking choice.
TheItchyFetus 5 months ago 2
@TheItchyFetus uhhh, it's not a government ad, and it's not funded by taxpayers' money.
monkeytypist 5 months ago
@monkeytypist ohh ok, but do we get a choice?
TheItchyFetus 5 months ago
@TheItchyFetus what do mean 'a choice/' A choice to pay for the ad? You haven't paid for the ad, unless you're a member or supporter of one of the community organisations that have run the Say Yes campaign. You certainly get a choice on whether you think a price on pollution will help Australia's future :)
monkeytypist 5 months ago
@monkeytypist A choice for the Carbon Tax.
TheItchyFetus 5 months ago
Comment removed
sbvor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The world's largest oil company (ExxonMobil) is continuing to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial.
radiantcold 5 months ago 2
Addendum to previous comment...
When propagandists like Comrade @radiantcold refer to temperatures "on record", they are (quite deliberately) cherry-picking the time frame of the (highly dubious) instrument record dating from 1850. To see how current temperatures compare over a FAR more relevant time frame...
Google this:
SBVOR: Temperatures Over Time - Part II
And, Google this:
SBVOR: Recent Hysteria - Arctic Now Warmest in 2,000 years
sbvor 5 months ago
@sbvor
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators that we should look for. Whilst its natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible;snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even sea temperatures themselves. A 2010 study included 10 key indicators, and every one of them is moving in the direction expected of a warming globe.
radiantcold 5 months ago
@sbvor
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
radiantcold 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
radiantcold 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
Over the past 10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures.
radiantcold 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
radiantcold 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
The world's largest oil company (ExxonMobil) is continuing to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial.
radiantcold 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.
radiantcold 5 months ago
Comrade @radiantcold says:
"Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2."
Sure, that's the blind assumption built into all of the demonstrably invalidated IPCC computer models. But, as is so often the case with AGW theory, observational data have demonstrated this ASSumption to be not merely incorrect, but entirely upside down.
Google this:
SBVOR: Holy Grail of Climate Change - Deception Continues
sbvor 5 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
radiantcold 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).
radiantcold 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
radiantcold 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).
radiantcold 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
radiantcold 5 months ago
Comrade @heliosrayne,
The "scientific consensus" argument is the biggest lie of all.
Virtually all scientists agree that man made CO2 has (extremely minor) heat trapping properties. That does NOT mean they all agree with the IPCC. In FACT, a large majority of scientists do NOT agree with the IPCC.
Google this (and find a more detailed exposé on the biggest lie of all):
SBVOR: Meteorologists are (rightly) skeptical on CAGW
sbvor 6 months ago
@sbvor all your "sources" are pretty much obscure and dubious links to your own site. Hardly reliable and an embarrassingly bad argument. I suggest you silence yourself to avoid further humiliation. You're really quite idiotic and aren't doing yourself favours with your unintelligible drivel. Come back when you understand what science is.
heliosrayne 6 months ago
Comrade @heliosrayne,
On my site, you will find direct links to the directly cited peer reviewed science which demonstrates that NONE of the metrics are even remotely close to falling outside the bounds of natural variation.
The ONLY thing which makes the current interglacial warming period any different from the previous six interglacial warming periods is that this one is COOLER than ALL of the previous six interglacial warming periods.
Google this:
SBVOR: Climate Change Science - an Overview
sbvor 6 months ago
@sbvor Why should i google your site when much like your youtube comments its full of pseudo-scientific vitriol?
heliosrayne 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Comrade @heliosrayne,
So, in your world, all peer reviewed science which contradicts the canon of your CAGW religious cult is deemed to be "pseudo-scientific vitriol"? Scary.
Google this:
SBVOR: Climate Change Science - an Overview
sbvor 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
All your "sources" are pretty much obscure and dubious links to your own site. Hardly reliable and an embarrassingly bad argument.
radiantcold 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
The IPCC lead authors are experts in their field, instructed to fairly represent the full range of the up-to-date, peer-reviewed literature. Consequently, the IPCC reports tend to be cautious in their conclusions. Comparisons to the most recent data consistently finds that climate change is occurring more rapidly and intensely than indicated by IPCC predictions.
radiantcold 4 months ago
@heliosrayne,
1) The Hockey Stick (once the central IPCC argument) is merely the biggest and most visible falsification. Falsification takes many forms - some more subtle than others.
Google this:
SBVOR: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data
2) The (extremely minor) heat trapping properties of man made CO2 were never enough to whip up any concern. The water vapor response has always been the linchpin.
Google this:
SBVOR: Holy Grail of Climate Change - Advantage, Skeptics
sbvor 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sbvor
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
radiantcold 4 months ago
To all you silly deluded fantasy-land dwelling people of 'SayYesAustralia' WAKE UP!!!!!!!!! You can't save the planet with some ridiculous carbon Tax, or ETS.. you can't even help the planet with a tax on carbon or any other ''pollutant'', The earth has been cooling and warming in a constant cycle since its creation,. who the F**K do you people think you are, in believing that a dodgy political fix and some lame tax can save the planet!?? time to grow up and wake up people!!
ChaseTheDub 6 months ago 66
@ChaseTheDub,
You are quite correct.
Ever seen George Carlin's take on these self-absorbed "save the planet" fools?
If not, Google this (it's spot on):
George Carlin - Saving the Planet
sbvor 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ChaseTheDub
Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.
radiantcold 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChaseTheDub
A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. In the past 10000 years, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained relatively stable. However, human CO2 emissions in that last 100 years have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. Eg, as the oceans absorb CO2, which leads to acidification of marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures.
radiantcold 4 months ago
@sbvor Oh so the mainstream public with idiots such as yourself is more reliable than the research of the world's leading scientists? Proves how much of a buffoon you are. Opinion polls don't legitimise a policy, judge it on its principles rather than how vocal right-wing and backward conservatives like you are.
heliosrayne 6 months ago
Comrade @heliosrayne,
1) You refer to the poll showing 69% believe scientists have falsified Global Warming research?
For proof of falsification Google this:
SBVOR: Berkeley Physics Professor Destroys the Hockey Stick
Also, Google this:
SBVOR: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
2) I am an environmental scientist. You, no doubt, form your opinions based upon media coverage. I rely upon published science.
Google this:
SBVOR: Climate Change Science - an Overview
sbvor 6 months ago 75
Because the climate never stops changing, Climate Change is the PERFECT scam for corruptocrats like Al Gore. No matter how much money we waste or how much power we give to them, the climate will continue to change and they will continue to demand more power and more money.
Fortunately, however, the public is no longer buying what they're selling (and, our young fool @mattt1994 has hitched himself to a cult already in its death throes).
Google this:
SBVOR: Global Warming hysteria runs out of gas
sbvor 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.
radiantcold 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.
radiantcold 5 months ago
To be more technically precise, I should have -- in my previous comment -- referenced the current phase of "all interglacial warming periods" (the phase which is at or near what is called the climatic optimum of an interglacial period).
sbvor 6 months ago
@sbvor You can believe what ever you want, but in the end, I am the one with the consensus and to deny that is foolishness. 90% of media are saying climate change exists, 90% of politicians, 90% of scientists say climate change exists. Who do you think the average person is going to believe, you or the passionate student who advocates for a more sustainable world for future generations. I think we both know the answer.
mattt1994 6 months ago
Comrade @mattt1994.
You have been indoctrinated to falsely accuse me of denying the climate ever changes. The climate (like everything else) never stops changing. That said, we are currently enjoying some of the most stable climatic conditions this planet has ever seen - this is typical of ALL interglacial warming periods.
You want to see some REAL (and perfectly NATURAL) climate change? Google this:
Meltwater Pulse 1A
Then, Google this:
SBVOR: Climate Change Science - an Overview
sbvor 6 months ago
Comrade @mattt1994,
Purely political propagandists have always targeted the young. Why? Because the young are naive, gullible, inexperienced, easily deceived and easily manipulated.
Face it - you were targeted and you've been HAD!
Google this:
SBVOR: Global Warming hysteria runs out of gas
sbvor 6 months ago
Comrade @mattt1994,
In this thread, you claim you are 17 years old. On your profile page, you claim you are 24 years old. If we cannot trust you to be honest about your age, how can we trust anything you say?
Typical alarmist...
sbvor 6 months ago
@sbvor So i'm assuming you think that the Earth is cooling than? Because even if what you are saying is true, it does not explain the warming, Arctic ice melt and extreme weather events, right?
mattt1994 6 months ago
Comrade @mattt1994,
1) The peer reviewed science demonstrates that there are NO climate change related metrics which are even remotely close to being outside the bounds of natural variation. Google this:
SBVOR: Climate Change Science - an Overview
2) The recent 30 year warming phase is over. According to NOAA, it ended in 1998. According to the infamous center of the ClimateGate scandal (Phil Jones), it ended (statistically speaking) in 1995.
Google this:
SBVOR: How the AMO killed the CAGW cult
sbvor 6 months ago
@sbvor Lol I don't have time for this. In between replying to your comments, I'm writing a climate change editorial to be featured in my local paper and preparing for a tour to speak to 10,000 high students about the urgency of the climate crisis as a result of my training with Al Gore. And i'm only 17 years old ; ) haha i'll put your username in my inbox and I'll have a nice laugh in 20 years when it turns out i'm right : )
mattt1994 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.
radiantcold 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators that we should look for. Whilst it's natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible; snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves. A 2010 study included 10 key indicators, and every one of them is moving in the direction expected of a warming globe.
radiantcold 5 months ago
@sbvor Still didn't answer my question. Who would possibly want climate change to be true!!! The truth is it's your word against every National Academy of Science in the world. Isn't it obvious who's right... not you.
mattt1994 6 months ago
Comrade @mattt1994,
The question is not who "would possibly want climate change to be true". The question is how can mere science compete with $100 BILLION in utterly corrupt and purely political government "research" funds and tens of TRILLIONS in utterly corrupt and purely political government "mitigation" funds?
Google this:
SBVOR: Climate Money
sbvor 6 months ago
@sbvor Look, do you believe in the greenhouse effect, it was proved as a scientific law in 1896?
mattt1994 6 months ago
@sbvor Here's what I'll never understand about deniers. People with money control the media. The world's richest are oil executives and technology inventors. The last thing the wealthy want is climate change to exist because it will result in huge changes to their businesses. Why would they invent a hoax that will undoubtedly hurt them in the short term. Who benefits from climate change being true???????
mattt1994 6 months ago
@mattt1994,
You're as naive & gullible as the day is long.
A carbon tax will do nothing but harm for all (except for the crony capitalist so-called "green" energy scammers in bed with the fascists of the so-called "Green" party).
Fortunately, a majority of Aussies know this. Unfortunately. the fascists running the Aussie government don't care one whit about the Aussie people or what they think (same as the USA).
What the scientific facts?
Google this:
SBVOR: Climate Change Science - an Overview
sbvor 6 months ago
@sbvor 53% of respondents thought they would be worse off?! Sometimes people need to forget about their selfishness and short term gains and realize that this carbon tax will help the environment and Australia's economy in the long run.
mattt1994 6 months ago
To all of the Australians viewing this: You should all be lucky you live in a country that takes climate change seriously! In Canada, we treasure our oil sands and protect them from any type of regulation meanwhile their creating as much GHG emissions as the country of Switzerland. Please set an example to the world Australia, this carbon tax gives so many people hope!!!
mattt1994 6 months ago
@mattt1994 Learn how to use "their" and 'they're" correctly and then we'll take you seriously. Canada is also known as America Junior and you should mind your own affairs. When you become a citizen, work and pay taxes here, you can comment. This excludes those commie green scum who happen to citizens, but probably don't work very often or pay too much tax - they just ought to be locked up.
Enricom23 6 months ago
@Enricom23 Aha I did use the wrong they're oops. Thanks for the grammar lesson ; ) but I think you need a geography lesson. The greenhouse effect proven in 1896 is a law that states that co2 effects the temperature of the planet. 98% of climate scientists believe in man-made global warming. THIS IS NOT a country by country issue it's a global issue, so I have every right to applaud or criticize Australia's climate actions.
mattt1994 6 months ago
@mattt1994 I see you're a budding David Copperfield, pulling all sorts of magical things out of thin air. For example, that 98% of climate scientists believe in man made climate change. I've never seen such a figure. Most of those dummies are also on government payrolls. Still, you seem like a nice person - unlike the rabid leftoids trying to jam their doom and gloom scenario down our collective throat, so points for that.
Enricom23 6 months ago
@Enricom23 The Washington Post, NY TImes, Guardian, and Bild all support the 98% to 2%. Lol thanks for the compliment, I don't believe in bickering I enjoy friendly debates much better ; )
mattt1994 6 months ago
@sbvor im pretty sure the polls taken are crappy biased ones from unreliable and extremely biased media sources involving anywhere from 300-1200 people
Martin8120 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
Concession of defeat accepted. Good riddance.
Those who are not as ideologically blinkered as you KNOW there is nothing even remotely unusual about current temps or current trends. Not ONE metric is even REMOTELY close to being outside the bounds of natural variation.
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Climate Change Science - an Overview
sbvor 6 months ago
SBVOR — you keep on screaming away here into your own echo chamber. I'm done. I'm off to spread the knowledge that even someone with an arts and humanities background can understand Cherry-Picking Straw-Man attacks if they bother to read the peer-reviewed work. Your blog is full of crap and lies and quotes out of context. Have fun ignoring one of the most fascinating scientific enterprises this civilization has ever embarked on! You're obsessed, you're full of it, but at least you're losing. Bye
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sbvor — if you have ANY respect for science you'll retract the retarded lie that "there is nothing even REMOTELY unusual about current temperatures".
The FACTS are that 2 the top 3 climate monitoring units on the planet — NASA and NOAA — have reported that 1998 is now the 3rd warmest year on record, behind 2005 and 2010 which tied equal first hottest years on record.
ncdc.noaa[dot]gov/sotc/global/2010/13
giss.nasa[dot]gov/research/news/20110112/
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
P.S.) The last time the Dims signed a budget into law was March 11, 2009 (well over 800 days ago).
Google this, pinhead:
"The Fiscal Year 2009 federal budget, signed into law by President Obama March 11"
I guess the Dims did not want to go on record as having supported the MASSIVELY irresponsible Dim spending spree as documented by the Bureau of Economic Analysis via the St. Louis Federal Reserve.
Google this, MORON:
SBVOR: Big Spending Dems
sbvor 6 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipseNow,
Since you're not an American, you have some excuse for being utterly ignorant of the fact that Congress (NOT the President) signs the checks and passes the budgets into law. Of course, for more than 800 days, the latest round of Dim tyrants were too busy spending to even bother to pretend to pass a budget.
I've got the substantiated data for you.
Google this, MORON:
SBVOR: Big Spending Dems
sbvor 6 months ago
This wiki is just for SBVOR, and documents how the Democrats have been the ones to LOWER US national debt.
en.wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
3 million people. Well there's a lie. This whole thing is lie after lie after lie.
MarinersArmsHotel 6 months ago
Absolutely not.
Say no and don't vote for labor and the greens again!!!!!!
MarinersArmsHotel 6 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
Lemme see if I understand you correctly...
You have absolute faith in peer reviewed science (unless that peer reviewed science contradicts the creed of your totalitarian political religious cult).
So, what you're really saying is that you have absolute FAITH (literally) in the creed of your totalitarian political religious cult.
Yeah...
That about sums it up.
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Climate Change Science - an Overview
sbvor 6 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
You expect me to take seriously what Kevin Trenberth has to say @ RealClimate?
Dr. Spencer's paper was published in a peer reviewed journal.
If Comrade Trenberth finds fault in that paper, let him try to get his critique published in a peer reviewed journal.
Given the alarmist manipulation of the peer review process revealed by ClimateGate, Trenberth should have no problem getting his garbage published. Or, will he?
Who’s the “denialist” of peer reviewed science NOW?
sbvor 6 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
You lying sack of SHIT!
You don't know one damn thing about Dr. Spencer's religious views (as IF they mattered) so stop pretending you do. I have looked. I have found NOTHING which even BEGINS to describe Dr. Spencer's religious views (as IF they mattered).
Dr. Spencer wrote ONE science based paper suggesting that Intelligent Design was not indefensible. NOTHING in that paper revealed ANYTHING about Dr. Spencer's own views.
You & your Stalinist pals do NOTHING BUT SMEAR!
sbvor 6 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
1) How many times must I remind you that your Wikipedia based appeal to authority is unmitigated bullshit on countless levels?
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Meteorologists are (rightly) skeptical on CAGW
2) Neither Dr. Spencer nor I are so-called "denialists" of science -- YOU ARE! You! The totalitarian MORON “educated” in the “Humanities” & UTTERLY IGNORANT of science! YOU, who can ONLY appeal to authority!
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Climate Change Science - an Overview
sbvor 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SBVOR so given your capacity to cherry-pick out the things that matter to you and then just call other names like "Stalinist" etc, I'm wondering if this is worth it? You're completely obsessed with disproving what EVERY NATIONAL SCIENCE ACADEMY ON THE PLANET HAS AGREED UPON. The basic physics of Co2 are indisputable. Look up Beer's Law and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy. We KNOW what Co2 does, and by how much it does it!
The NASA link once again.
tinyurl[dot]com/3qxuas4
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
@ SBVOR I wasn't attacking Roy Spencer's faith — in many ways I share it. (Without the Creationist bit). I'm not prejudiced about that at all.
What should raise alarm bells is your capacity to sing his praises simply because he sings to the same songbook of Denial as you. He's preaching to your choir. He has signed a theological statement that SPECIFICALLY PRECLUDES accepting climate change. This compromises his objectivity.
This next explains the rest.
tinyurl[dot]com/3qxuas4
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
One moronic, power crazed politician praises another moronic, power crazed politician & both are praised by a power crazed moron "educated" in the "Humanities" (you).
All this proves WHAT?
Worse than that, this power crazed moron "educated" in the "Humanities" is so blindly arrogant as to believe he has all the answers for the energy sector and wants his ignorance imposed through any available tyranny?
Typical Stalinist.
sbvor 6 months ago
The world's most powerful conservative leader says go for it! Have a carbon tax, it is the right policy!
"BRITAIN'S Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, has personally congratulated Julia Gillard on her carbon tax policy in a letter penned from the desk of 10 Downing Street."
Personally I don't care if they NATIONALIZE energy as long as they build the nukes, stop mining the coal, and get the JOB DONE!
inyurl[dot]com/4y6ll5b
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
Australia deserves FAR better than the lying scumbag "leader" they currently endure.
Has there ever been a bigger bald faced liar anywhere at anytime?
watch?v=5Ju5OnAOq58
sbvor 6 months ago
Is the climate changing? Yes, always has, always will.
Is northern hemisphere ice melting? Yes, it's been melting for 20,000 years!
But, peer reviewed science PROVES that there is nothing even remotely unusual about current temperatures or current trends.
Google this:
SBVOR: Climate Change Science - an Overview
Increasingly, the science is also proving the hysteria mongering of the purely political IPCC to have been FALSE.
Google this:
SBVOR: Holy Grail of Climate Change - Advantage, Skeptics
sbvor 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
Ice mass loss is occuring at an accelerated rate in Greenland, Antarctica and globally from inland glaciers. Arctic sea ice is also falling at an accelerated rate. The exception to this ice loss is Antarctic sea ice which has been growing despite the warming Southern Ocean. This is due to local factors unique to the area.
radiantcold 5 months ago
PS) Regarding the likely cause of multi-million year ice ages (the position of our solar system within the Milky Way galaxy):
For the press account, Google this:
Galaxy 'may cause ice ages'
For the peer reviewed science, Google this:
Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites, and a Possible Climatic Connection
sbvor 6 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow says:
"Year round ice IS 'normal' for this current geological period with: [blah, blah, blah]"
Comrade! You forgot about the position of our solar system within the Milky Way galaxy! THAT is the mother of all climate cycles! THAT is the most likely cause of each and every one of our multi-million year ice ages (including the present multi-million year ice age).
Google this, pinhead:
Galaxy 'may cause ice ages'
sbvor 6 months ago
@sbvor I didn't forget about the Galaxy hypothesis which is very interesting (but seems to me to require quite a bit of faith). It's simply irrelevant. We're not talking about multi-million year cycles here but global warming that is occurring over decades. I thought that was self-evident. Climate cycles that might, or might not, be occurring over tens or hundreds of millions of years are not the issue. *Sudden* changes that require a massive civilization scaled response are!
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
The warming effect from more CO2 greatly outstrips the influence from changes in the Earth's orbit or solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels.
radiantcold 5 months ago
Comrade @radiantcold mindlessly regurgitates all the usual hackneyed clichés, half truths and flat out lies related to global warming hysteria.
I have -- long ago -- thoroughly debunked EVERY one of these clichés in a single comprehensive post complete with directly cited and directly linked to peer reviewed science.
Google this:
SBVOR: Climate Change 101
sbvor 5 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators that we should look for. Whilst it's natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible; snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves. A 2010 study included 10 key indicators, and every one of them is moving in the direction expected of a warming globe.
radiantcold 4 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
Contrary to your usual lies, I have (long ago) responded to each and every bit of your counter-scientific hysteria mongering.
Google this and find ALL your answers, point by point:
SBVOR: Climate Change 101
sbvor 6 months ago
@sbvor ////counter-scientific hysteria mongering.//// You keep claiming the moral high-ground. I'm wondering if you are pathological? Suffering from delusions of grandeur? (I'm trying to smash some self-awareness into you.) Do I really need to remind you that I'm the one that accepts the scientific work of every National Science Academy on the planet, and YOU are the one that screams paranoid conspiracy theories against it?
en.wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
PS) As if this matters, I am a lifelong agnostic who embraces that old-fashioned concept of religious tolerance.
Unfortunately, it appears as though religious tolerance is anathema to Comrade @TheEclipsenow and the rest of his Stalinist pals.
sbvor 6 months ago
@sbvor ///As if this matters, I am a lifelong agnostic who embraces that old-fashioned concept of religious tolerance./// Your worldview matters in other ways, but is not necessarily relevant here, unless it specifically precludes you accepting the peer-reviewed science. Roy Spencer's faith DOES specifically preclude that. Does your ultra-right wing zeal qualify as a faith? Do you believe in it so much it has lost meaning as an economic tool and become your meaning for life? If so that matters.
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
It is said that those who have the science on their side argue the science, those who do not have the science on their side attack the messenger.
You cannot refute Dr. Spencer's science so you attack his alleged religious views? Typical Stalinist.
Looking beyond the Wikipedia lies, I have never found ANY clear evidence of Dr. Spencer's religious views (as if that mattered). The ONLY thing I found is a science based argument suggesting Intelligent ID is not indefensible.
sbvor 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@sbvor
Spencer and Braswell's study uses an overly simplistic climate model, their conclusions rely on using one particular data set, and their paper does not provide enough information to duplicate the study. The paper is fundamentally flawed and has no scientific merit.
radiantcold 5 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
1) The next glacial period is about 50,000 years away.
Google this, pinhead:
An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead?
2) The current ice age will last at least another million years.
So, I'm pretty sure no panic is in order.
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Climate Change 101
sbvor 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Comrade @radiantcold says:
"When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit."
Clearly, Comrade @radiantcold does not even understand the difference between glacial periods and ice ages.
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Temperatures Over Time - Part I
sbvor 6 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted... The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted."
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Holy Grail of Climate Change - Advantage, Skeptics
By taxing carbon, Aussie political tyrants have created their own Waterloo.
GOOD RIDDANCE to them!
sbvor 7 months ago
@sbvor That satellite work was submitted by Roy Spencer — a creationist. He cannot accept climate change because he cannot accept an old earth. You're only quoting him and crowing over his work because it agrees with your own political biases. Tell us all, are you a Creationist as well?
en.wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29#Views_on_intelligent_design
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
No year round ice is the NORMAL condition for this planet! Year round ice is ABNORMAL.
The only reason we currently have year round ice anywhere is because we are currently experiencing one of the three COLDEST ice ages of the last 600 million years. Once we emerge from this ice age, there will (once again) be no year round ice ANYWHERE!
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Temperatures Over Time - Part I
sbvor 7 months ago
@sbvor
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators we should look for. Whilst it's natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible; snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves. A 2010 study included 10 indicators, and every one of them is moving in the direction expected of a warming globe.
radiantcold 6 months ago
@sbvor Year round ice IS "normal" for this current geological period with:
* the sun at the current luminosity
* the continents where they are
* the volcanoes at their lower level of emissions than in higher activity periods
* the atmosphere at the pre-industrial carbon emissions.
This is the climate the human species evolved in. This is the climate our agriculturally dependent civilization evolved in. You are simply WRONG that having ice is not normal for NOW.
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
@sbvor Year round ice Part 2. You really suck at Denialism SBVOR. Give up. Go run home to mummy or scream at the walls. You're currently embarrassing yourself by saying "Catastrophic climate change is not happening" and then the next moment contradicting yourself by saying "Once we emerge from this ice age there will be no year round ice ANYWHERE!" as if that is a good thing. Phew, what a retard! You're talking about 7 billion people trying to eat in a world with half our agriculture gone.
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
@sbvor You still haven't substantively responded to why no single National Academy of Science sees the data the way you do, why the Radiative Forcing Equation shows stacks of energy being trapped in the atmosphere by Co2, why everything's melting, why the last decade WAS the warmest on record by the peer-reviewed science, why the Arctic is melting, why you're wrong and won't admit it, and why no real (non-Creationist) peer-reviewed science agrees with you.
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
1) Wikipedia? REALLY?
Google this:
Wikipedia's Climate Doctor
2) It is very well documented that the highest concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the entire history of the planet coincided with the largest EXPLOSION of biodiversity in the entire history of the planet (the Cambrian Explosion).
Are you claiming CO2 causes BOTH extinction events AND biodiversity explosions? LOL! The new alarmist meme - CO2 causes EVERYTHING!
Google this:
SBVOR: Atmospheric CO2 Over Time
sbvor 7 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
IPCC projections of a 0.18 to 0.59 meter rise in sea levels over the next 100 years are predicated upon false assumptions regarding the response of water vapor to the very tiny amount of directly induced warming caused by CO2. Increasingly, direct observations are proving these assumptions not merely wrong, but entirely upside down (meaning even the IPCC sea level projections are way too high).
Google this:
SBVOR: IPCC Computer Models vs. Direct Measurement
sbvor 7 months ago
@sbvor I'm bored. You keep repeating the same old crap. Wikipedia is a great resource if you bother to look for the peer-reviewed references below! Denialist trolls like yourself NEVER concede a simple point, but I'm bigger than that. Co2 once SAVED life on earth during the Snowball Earth period. We nearly got locked in a permanent deep freeze. Most water froze 600 million years ago — there was no rain, all ice. But volcanoes emitting Co2 saved us. Co2 changes the climate! *Once* this was good.
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
@sbvor Snowball earth part 2: With the rain cycle frozen and locked down in ice, there was nothing to wash the Co2 out of the air. It built up to incredible levels. These super-high levels of Co2 saved life on earth! But look around buddy, we're not in a snowball earth now. It's about context. Rain is great for a drought stricken area, unless it comes in a flood. Context. Amounts. Appropriateness. Get it?
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
@sbvor Snowball earth 3: So AFTER the Snowball earth event the story is simpler. Warming = bad.
(Or are the Royal Society just a bunch of communists in on the conspiracy?)
"Our results provide the first clear evidence that global climate may explain substantial variation in the fossil record in a simple and consistent manner. Our findings may have implications for extinction and biodiversity change under future climate warming. "
rspb.royalsocietypublishing[dot]org/content/275/1630/47.full
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
@sbvor
Climate sensitivity can be calculated empirically by comparing past temperature change to natural forcings at the time. Various periods of Earth's past have been examined in this manner and find broad agreement of a climate sensitivity of around 3°C.
radiantcold 6 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
As you just demonstrated, sea level scare mongering is even more dishonest than Arctic sea ice scare mongering.
Sea level scare mongers will never tell you that continents are rising (thereby offsetting sea level rise).
Google this:
SBVOR: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data
sbvor 7 months ago
@sbvor
The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations. In fact, sea level is not only rising, but the rise is accelerating.
radiantcold 6 months ago
The stark raving mad lunatic @TheEclipsenow says:
“The climatologists are telling us that if we KEEP going inthe same direction with fossil fuels, we'll have NO ICE on the planet and have sea-levels 65 meters higher.”
REALLY? Which stark raving mad lone wolf lunatic made that claim?
Even the loony tunes alarmists at the IPCC project only 7” to 23” (0.18 to 0.59 meters) of sea level rise in the next 100 years. See Table 3.1 on page 45 of this IPCC link:
tiny[DOT]cc/9edyj
sbvor 7 months ago
@sbvor Re: sea levels. Don't rip my words out of context like some cheap parlour trick you retard! We were talking about the Royal Society's conclusions that super-greenhouse events of the past were bad for biodiversity, and that if we KEEP on the current paths and burn EVERY LAST SCRAP of Co2 in the atmosphere we could kick off feedbacks that in the *distant* future might see an ice-free earth again. I never mentioned a timeline you strawman idiot.
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
Comment removed
sbvor 7 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
Quoting the government funded alarmists at NSIDC:
“5,500 years ago, the Arctic had substantially less summertime sea ice than today”
It is virtually certain that ALL of the Arctic sea ice routinely melted during EVERY summer during that timeframe. CO2 was NOT the cause! We are NOT capable of micromanaging climate change! CO2 is a VERY tiny bit player in that drama.
Google this:
SBVOR: Is CO2 a Primary Driver of Climate Change?
sbvor 7 months ago
@sbvor
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
radiantcold 6 months ago
Followup to my previous comment...
The politician (Christine Milne) who thinks she is qualified to determine (and dictate) what is scientifically sound journalism apparently has NO academic background in ANY branch of science.
The ABC says of her that:
"Prior to entering politics Christine taught English, History and Social Science in high schools"
Typical background for a "true believer" (just like Comrade @TheEclipsenow).
sbvor 7 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
Your Fascist "Green" friends are on the march in Australia.
Google this, Comrade:
Milne's vow to punish critics is an echo of Stalinist censorship
sbvor 7 months ago 11
@sbvor I'm with Professor John Abrahams when he says that we shouldn't completely censor you mad tinfoil wearing psychopaths *every* time you rant rabid conspiracy theories. We should merely limit how long the media wastes listening to you. Just as we don't give the Flat Earth Society air time every time we accidentally show the Earth from space — so we shouldn't have to repeat your rabid nonsense every time real scientists talk about the climate.
/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p94KgNm1f1A
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
You think your nuclear reactors could power electric cars and bring about your Green Tyranny Socialist Utopia?
You fucking MORON, if we all bought your stupid little electric cars, the world would run out of the rare earth metals required to build those electric cars in a matter of days.
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Green Cult Members vs. Sustainability
There is currently NO viable alternative to hydrocarbons!
So long as governments subsidize FAILURE, there NEVER WILL BE!
sbvor 7 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
1) Obama's utterly FAILED "stimulus" cost FAR MORE than the Iraq war.
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act
2) Military spending is NOT what is bankrupting the USA, Entitlements are. EVERYBODY who is even REMOTELY informed and REMOTELY honest knows that and admits it (Dims included).
Google this, MORON:
SBVOR: Deficit Spending - Cause & Cure V2.0
sbvor 7 months ago
@sbvor Ah you funny little boy, the truth about the Iraq war really hurt didn't it? Oh well. Go ahead and foam at the mouth some more. Australia has a 1% higher tax / GDP rate and has what you would call 'socialized medicine'. Our medicine actually costs us 1% LESS per unit of Government spending, yet we cover the whole population for life threatening medicine. And we have a good welfare safety net. So even with a similar % tax and spending, we're not bankrupt are we? Go figure. ;-)
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
@sbvor America spends more than the next few nations combined on their military. So while you sit there foaming at the mouth as you rub yourself in peanut butter and scream at the walls at the unfairness of a world that allows Australia to operate a slightly higher safety net and yet not face your level of debt / Unit GDP, I'll just laugh at your assertions. You need to get off oil. You need more walkable New Urban towns and rail as even YOU have admitted the car culture is ULTIMATELY DEAD!
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
@sbvor And you can spare yourself the pain of typing "Google this, SBVOR rubs himself in peanut butter and has other filthy habits". Because I won't. I've been there and done that and found you to be a lying, cherry-picking Denialist bastard that simply doesn't tell the truth. About anything.
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
@sbvor No super-greenhouse? Try this Extinction Level Event.
en.wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/ELE#Sustained_and_significant_global_warming
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
UNSCR 1441 AUTHORIZED the USA to invade Iraq (as did the Democrat dominated Congress).
2) It was the UN accounting of WMD which formed the basis for establishing that Iraq HAD NOT destroyed all their WMD.
3) UNSCR 1441 gave Saddam almost FIVE FULL MONTHS in which to hide what was left of his WMD.
4) We STILL FOUND 550 metric tons of nuclear bomb precursors.
Google this, you fucking MORON:
SBVOR: Iraq War Media Deceptions 101
sbvor 7 months ago
@sbvor Also, you don't know anything about Rare Earths and batteries do you?
1. "Despite their name, rare earth elements (with the exception of the radioactive promethium) are relatively plentiful in the Earth's crust, with cerium being the 25th most abundant element at 68 parts per million (similar to copper)." (From wiki)
2. They're working on carbon nanofibre battery replacements for rare earths
3. Your fear of EV's just confirms you've got money invested in business as usual.
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
Are the government funded alarmists at NOAA also "Denialists"? AGAIN, I quote NOAA:
“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”
There has been no warming since 1998 and, according to Phil Jones, no statistically significant warming since 1995.
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: How the AMO killed the CAGW cult
sbvor 7 months ago
@sbvor And re: ENSO you obsessive Denialist retard, try this: "The non-ENSO component of the trend explains 96% of the total trend and has a structure that is distinct from ENSO, including cooling in the South Pacific due to increased southeast trades, warming of the warm pool, and strengthening of the equatorial Pacific near-surface temperature gradient superimposed upon a uniform warming."
agu[dot]org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL045978.shtml
I didn't expect you to tell the truth, CHERRY-PICKER!
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
@sbvor ENSO Part 2: "The trends over the last 30 years remain though the interannual variability is slightly reduced (as you’d expect). The magnitude of the adjustment varies between +/-0.25ºC." Ooops! Forgot to share that with us did you?
realclimate[dot]org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/
Look, just scream at the walls or play the tuba badly. And take the blue tablets. No, not in that end, we don't eat through THAT hole do we? There, in the mouth, that's better.
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
@sbvor
The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.
radiantcold 6 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
You MORON!
There have been NO "super-greenhouse" periods. There are hot-house periods and ice-house periods. Each hot-house period is similar to another (same with ice-house periods) and there is NO correlation between hot-house periods and CO2!
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Atmospheric CO2 Over Time
sbvor 7 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
Even the alarmists at NOAA know you're delusional. Quoting NOAA:
“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”
There has been no warming since 1998 and, according to Phil Jones, no statistically significant warming since 1995.
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: How the AMO killed the CAGW cult
BTW, I AM a scientist
sbvor 7 months ago
@sbvor "BTW, I AM a scientist" Yes, but the fact that even I, with a humanities background, can look at what you write and see glaring cherry-picked data that's ideologically driven — well let's just say that it doesn't bode well for your mental health, does it? 1998 was an El Nino year and I've even seen Denialist's at the Heartland institute warning against using the "No warming since 1998" myth. And I've alreadly googled that page, and commented, and found it wanting. Pinhead.
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
@sbvor
For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.
radiantcold 6 months ago
Comrade @TheEclipsenow,
Yeah, right...
Mega-bureaucracies like the EU and the UN have been soooo darn beneficial that we need one uber-mega-bureaucracy to rule (and centrally plan) the whole damn planet, eh?
My GOD! What a MORON you are!
sbvor 7 months ago
@sbvor Right wing Tea-party Denialist's like yourself are responsible for belief's such as "WMD's in Iraq". So instead of spending 2 Trillion on safe Gen3 nukes + EV's and Rail to get off coal and imported oil, you invaded Iraq. How'd that work out for your national debt? Still paying $600 billion a year to buy imported oil are we? Just the oil is $6 trillion a decade or your national debt paid off in 20 years. If you got off oil. But you'd keep them addicted. Pinhead.
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
@sbvor So basically America defies the only form of international law we have, the UN security council recommendations, and invades Iraq, find's no WMD's, and bankrupts itself in the process. And you tell me the UN is just a moronic mega-bureaucracy. If American's had only listened to the UN and put that $2 trillion towards getting off oil, you might be SAVING $6 TRILLION A DECADE by now! Oh the irony!
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Comrade @radiantcold,
Snow cover? Really? Seriously?
After this past (northern hemisphere) winter, do you REALLY want to go there?
Comrade! It's time to update your propaganda spiel!
sbvor 7 months ago
Comment removed
sbvor 7 months ago
Comrade @radiantcold,
The ice has been melting for the last 20,000 years (ever since the last glacial maximum). Why the HELL would we expect it to stop melting now?
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Arctic Sea Ice & Polar Bear Commentary
Google this as well:
SBVOR: Debunking Ice Melt Hysteria - Part II
sbvor 7 months ago
@sbvor "Why the HELL would we expect it to stop melting now?" We don't. Try to keep up with the science mate, we really don't. The climatologists are telling us that if we KEEP going in the same direction with fossil fuels, we'll have NO ICE on the planet and have sea-levels 65 meters higher. But yes, the earth HAS been hotter in the past due to continents being in different locations, Co2 from higher volcanism, etc. These periods were disastrous for life on earth!
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
@sbvor
While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.
radiantcold 6 months ago
Comrade @radiantcold,
Quoting the alarmists at NOAA:
“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”
There has been no warming since 1998 and, according to Phil Jones, no statistically significant warming since 1995.
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: How the AMO killed the CAGW cult
sbvor 7 months ago
@sbvor Still spamming with requests to google your blog? How utterly insane you are. I stand back in awe at your paranoid delusions that this is all a cult, a conspiracy. Your'e out there with those who think Obama is the anti-Christ. I am truly mind-numbingly AMAZED at your late night ranting about utter, utter, utterly myths and crap like "It all stopped in 1998". Will you retract that please, 2005 equaled it, and 2010 maybe even topped it. You're utterly fruity.
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
@scandalousmickey
The Swindle was a collection of crude distortions in an elegant package. The data was misrepresented, the charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were designed to mislead. To cite just one example: the graph that purported to show that global temperatures had fallen between 1940 and 1975. Although it bore the label “NASA” it bore no resemblance to any NASA map of 20th century temperatures.
radiantcold 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THETROLL1111
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.
radiantcold 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. Over the past 10000 years, CO2 has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has direct effects on the environment. eg, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temps.
radiantcold 7 months ago
@scandalousmickey
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Why then, is it getting warmer when the sun is getting colder?
radiantcold 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scandalousmickey
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.
radiantcold 7 months ago