Anyone that truly believes the #debateisover is delusional. The debate was never about whether the climate has warmed – it has – or even whether man has contributed to the warming – we have – the debate is about what can and should be done and at what cost.
but bill you believe that the planet is self regulating for temperature so that would exclude you from a rational debate about costs,
just this week a QLD coal power stn has shut down in collinsville and solar is being built to supply about 6000 homes,
the reason is that without the local coal mine now closed (not viable) the coal powered stn is also not economically viable , wind in australia is now also cheaper than starting up new coal plants,
and please every day we have deniers claiming that the planet has not warmed and others claiming that it is not due to humans or even that CO2 does not cause warming
they are all your deniers friends, you say that you accept the warming and human contribution then turn around and claim a magical, creationist belief that god made the planet self regulating,
so claiming that the debate was never about etc is more of your drivel
would be interesting if bill, twodicks and k largo all believed exactly the same
1 that the planet is warming
2 that it is due partly to humans
3 that the planet is self regulating for temperature
The question is why isn’t the coal mine viable? And if it’s shut down then what are people doing for electricity TODAY?
I’ve already posted showing just how dependent Australia is on coal. It’s not like one mine or one coal fired power plant closing is going to change anything. “A drop in the bucket” comes to mind.
You’re in such denial that you can’t see the truth even when it’s right in front of your eyes.
“…showing just how dependent Australia is on coal…” It’s a millstone around our neck. We’ve become complacent,defensive and scared of moving past it, thanks to industry and government PR. A future livable climate is at stake, and conservative authoritarian governments have no plans but to gamble on coal,and manipulate the sentiments of dependent communities,who will be abandoned anyway when each deposit is winding down, as history teaches.
In the case of Collinsville, Xstrata has decided to close the mine to make an example of the town and the CFMEU for daring to disagree with the workplace agreement offered them.You do as you’re toldwhen the market is soft. Xsrtrata have decided that 2 bill is not enough….they’ll park the mine indefinitely. And the imaginative giants who run Queensland just want to open more mines ASAP, as this is the only way forward they will allow. The softening market will drive down wages and conditions and lead to watering down of environmental safeguards, and captive towns and workers will argue for the short-termism of this moribund model.
You have a very strange definition of “viable” john!
“The shutdown by the global mining conglomerate, which generated $112 billion in revenue and profits of more than $2 billion in the first six months of 2013, is devastating the town of Collinsville, whose population of 2,000 depends heavily on the mine. Many people face being forced to leave the area, and local businesses are likely to collapse.”
The mine generated $2 billion in profits and you claim it’s not viable? Seriously?
They won’t need to worry about building a solar plant to power the town because it will die without the mine. All these people are impacted by this corporation’s decision and you’re celebrating the decision. Now we see who’s side you’re really on. The workers are getting screwed and you’re dancing on their graves. Nice.
No stupid the coal mining industry claimed it was not viable, they do not give a shit about the workers, people still live there and need power, you want them to go withit power, why?
How long will the town exist without the coal mine?
Like I said you were celebrating the closure of the mine not giving one care to the people that lost their jobs or the businesses that depend on those employees just to survive.
“when you factor in the additional cost for backup generation”
Indeed. The pronouncements that wind or solar can generate kWh cheaper than existing generators when the wind is blowing or the Sun is shining ignore the fact that pinching business from existing generators at those times is not going to lower costs of existing generators much but will reduce their revenue by much more.
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant
radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean
surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high
confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than
6°C (medium confidence)”
So high confidence less than 1Degc but only medium confidence that it will not be greater than 6DegC
If you tune a model to mimic observed warming and you include in that model assumptions about response to GHGs then just guess what happens if you run that model without the change in GHG forcing.
Should be obvious but it sounds like you guys need to read about it.
You again show no understanding of how GCMs run. The models are set to initial conditions,they’re not set to mimic warming. Warming emerges from their inputs, they are set to mean climate then perturbed with the physics of forcings under varying emission-by-date scenarios.This is useful background
Geez they even state it right there in your link in the section on tuning:
“are used in adjusting the models to match the data”
I called it “mimic observed warming” they call it “matching the data”. The models are TUNED.
If you tune a model by changing a parameter so the model output “match the data” and then you remove one of the forcings, in this case GHG increases, then obviously the model will no longer “match the data”.
Looks like you need to read the whole thing before shooting your mouth off, Bill. What is ‘tuning’,what is ‘tuned’ and what is not? Removing the growth of GHGs [setting it to pre-industrial CO2 levels] is not ‘tuning’, it is removing a forcing. Then the model is run.
This is a perfect example from bill of how the creationist, conspiracy theorist mind works
one day the deniers claim the models are all wrong and then the next the implication is that they are correct but only because of fiddling.
weird logic, fact is bill that the model projections are there for all to see and run for decades into the future
in bill’s mind the greenhouse CO2 theory and physics become nothing more than assumptions, initial tuning becomes fiddling.
Go back and read it again Nick. The models are tuned to match the data. That’s with GHG forcings included. The model output matches the data. Removing the increase in GHG forcings and the model output no longer matches the data. No surprise.
have a look at those models they show that you have not even looked at them nor understand, all forcings are included in both except GHG,or human activity one matches the current global temperature the others shows what natural variation and solar influence would have produced.
if the GHG model did not reproduce the current reality then you would have a point,
Any tuning is to some physical factors which clearly have input into climate, in matching past observations [a redundancy,I know, but I am trying to remove any ambiguity]. The tuning is not arbitary,it is physics based,basically upscaling. The past information sets the initial conditions. Then the model is run into the future,and is not interfered with or nudged,with the exception that a projected increase in a GHG is timed into it,say 1.5ppm/annum or 2.5ppm/annum….[or as a control/comparison,the GHG is kept flat at pre-indust level]. And a solar cycle is factored in as well. That addition interacts with the set physics of the model and each run produces a climate realisation without interference. They all warm,they all produce weather [inter-annual or inter-decadal variation]. Given the unpredictable timing of ENSO events, they are all ‘wrong’ at those time scales,but the projections are about the long term. Over the century the atmosphere warms.
As has been observed,in correspondence with simple models from the 1980s [or earlier],the physics predicts warming when we add a persistent GHG to an earth atmosphere..Gee,what do you think Arrhenius did in making a prediction from the basic physics and observation of coal use in 1896? He ‘modelled’ a warming. Spot on!
Foolish people are arguing that because we cannot predict the exact timing of ENSO [and despite knowing what it is and does as a mechanism and as a regional climate/weather influence],and because we cannot exactly model deep ocean partitioning,and because we do not know exactly how long each solar cycle will be, that we cannot meaningful predict climate trend. Sorry,but we have predicted it: look at Hansen 1988 or Broecker earlier…or Callendar earlier again.
Nick says:
September 28, 2013 at 12:26 pm
You again show no understanding of how GCMs run. The models are set to initial conditions,they’re not set to mimic warming. Warming emerges from their inputs, they are set to mean climate then perturbed with the physics of forcings under varying emission-by-date scenarios.This is useful background
Reply
Bill Jamison says:
September 28, 2013 at 12:29 pm
So you don’t believe that models are tuned? Really?
nick is quite clear on what is done,” The models are set to initial conditions,they’re not set to mimic warming. Warming emerges from thier inputs”
does bill accept that fact, No he just veers off to now claim “So you don’t believe that models are tuned? Really?
john it’s a shame you spend so much time posting and so little time learning. From the RC link that Nick posted in the section on tuning models:
“are used in adjusting the models to match the data”
The models are tuned so their output matches “the data” just like RC states. Look up hindcast. It’s one method used to validate models – can they successfully reproduce observed warming? If they can’t then it’s assumed they lack skill.
This stuff is pretty basic and yet you guys fail to understand it. It’s not about “critical thinking” (which you guys seem to lack) but rather basic understanding.
It’s like john byatt thinking that all months have the same mean temperature not realizing that monthly means over the base period are different from the annual mean. He thought that the monthly means HAD to be the same as the annual mean when in fact they simply average out to the annual mean and vary by 3.8C: January is 12C and July is 15.8C (combined land+sea mean surface temperature) for the base period of 1902-2000.
That lack of basic understanding is why john claimed that a January monthly anomaly of 1.2C was “warmer” than a July with a monthly anomaly of 0.6C. Not even close.
I just don’t understand how someone that spends so much time posting about climate can be so ignorant of basic facts.
The models are tweaked in physics so their INPUT matches the past data [to establish initial conditions], not so that their OUTPUT matches. The OUTPUT emerges from the initial conditions and the variables timed in.
Right your math errors were caused by NOAA. That’s a great claim. Just can’t admit you didn’t understand such a basic concept and instead have to deflect and minimize and shift blame.
It doesn’t matter if it’s 13.9C or 14C the issue was the difference between the mean temperature for January and July is 3.8C and that’s what you failed to understand. You thought all months had the same mean temperature when they don’t.
What makes that more interesting is that the difference is almost solely due to land temperature during the northern hemisphere summer when the earth is farthest away from the sun. Of course it should be obvious that the ocean temperature doesn’t change much globally on a month to month basis while it certainly does for land. The difference is substantial too: January is 2.8C while July is 14.3C for a difference of 11.5C.
Its not what i failed to understand it was what i had not read
what i love is that you still have not got over it, thus every time your trashed you have to mention it, counting the numbers of times that you have mention it means you have been wrong at least five times to date
you were wrong about natural variation, self regulating earth, model tuning,
plus at least another three or four mentioned earlier
so should i now go back and find them all, why bother every one here except some creationist wanker has you sussed
I can quote you if you’d like. You said that all months have to have the same mean to match the annual mean. That was WRONG. Don’t pretend when it’s easy to prove what you said and show that you were wrong.
yes because i had not read it, but i do not believe that the planet is self regulating for temperature which is almost a direct quote from the cornwall alliance website
bill we have had two of your denier mates here confess to being creationists
klem and two dicks
isn’t time you stopped the charade and admitted your own creationist stance, you claim to be an atheist then praise god and give an almost direct quote from the cornwall alliance creationist website .
Don’t you get tired of lying john? I mean seriously, how badly do you need me to be a creationist that you’re willing to lie about it? If you had evidence of me “praising god” then you would have posted it after finding it on my Facebook page. But you didn’t find it because it’s not there.
You really don’t have any morals when it comes to posting john and that’s unfortunate. It’s shameful really.
Update & Correction (28 Sept): The upper value of the sea-level range is 98 cm, not 97 cm – I overlooked the fact that IPCC corrected this between the final draft and the approved version of the SPM.
Some media wrongly report a rise of “only” up to 82 cm by the year 2100. That is a misunderstanding: 82 cm is the average for the period 2081-2100, not the level reached in 2100. Both the curves up to 2100 and those 20-year averages are shown in Fig. 3 above. Note that the additional rise of up to 16 cm in the final decade illustrates the horrendous rates of rise we can get by the end of the century with unmitigated emissions.
It is also worth noting that the 98 cm is the upper value of a “likely” range (66% probability to be within that range). As IPCC also notes, we could end up “several tens of centimeters” higher if the marine-based parts of the Antarctic ice sheet become unstable. Leading ice experts, like Richard Alley and Rob De Conto, consider this a serious risk”
From the Guardian, following climategate. James Lovelock’s excoriating view of the lying, dumb, little scumbags who do modern climate science.
on CRU scientists
I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn’t want to do anything else other than be a scientist.
They’re not like that nowadays. They don’t give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science.
I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done
on computer models
I remember when the Americans sent up a satellite to measure ozone and it started saying that a hole was developing over the South Pole. But the damn fool scientists were so mad on the models that they said the satellite must have a fault. We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they’re not complete models.
They’re based more or less entirely on geophysics. They don’t take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the responses of the living stuff on the planet. So I don’t see how they can accurately predict the climate.
on predicting temperatures
If you look back on climate history it sometimes took anything up to 1,000 years before a change in one of the variables kicked in and had an effect. And during those 1,000 years the temperature could have gone in the other direction to what you thought it should have done. What right have the scientists with their models to say that in 2100 the temperature will have risen by 5C?
The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show.
We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear.
on scientists
Sometimes their view might be quite right, but it might also be pure propaganda. This is wrong. They should ask the scientists, but the problem is scientists won’t speak. If we had some really good scientists it wouldn’t be a problem, but we’ve got so many dumbos who just can’t say anything, or who are afraid to say anything. They’re not free agents.
this is pretty much what the flying monkeys and other retards at WUWT are doing, nothing to actually rebut the report so are just rehashing climategate etc, must be discouraging for them when they are hit with reality, even the mandatory creationist comments are there,
as Lovelock has stated, humans are too stupid to do anything to stop it
Climate science promotion is mindless corporate garbage only a right wing simpleton would believe.
The UN is a tool of American corporations (since the US government threatened to defund the UN) . The IPCC is a tool of the oil industry. Pachauri was an oil executive, even while head of the IPCC.
Wikipedia
Pachauri was on the Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation (January 1999 to September 2003). On 20 April 2002, Pachauri was elected Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations panel established by the WMO and UNEP to assess information relevant for understanding climate change.
Here is a BBC story about an Amazon tribe called the U’wa. They threatened to commit mass suicide if an oil company destroyed their land. Al Gore stepped in on behalf of the oil company . He is a political front for Occidental Petroleum.
Dr Pachauri has also been associated with academic and research institutes. He is on the Board of Directors of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (June 2006) and also on the Board of Directors of the NTPC Limited (January 2006). He was on the Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (January 1999 to September 2003);
creationist retards
We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.[6][7]
Prominent signatories of the declaration include climate scientist Roy Spencer, former climatologist David Legates, economist Ross McKitrick, meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, television meteorologist James Spann, and Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center.[8]
“you mean your answer to whats this greater intelligence crap.”
OK, I’ll answer…one of us needs to be civilised here. When I said greater intelligence I was referring to the belief that there is a guiding intelligence behind the universe that is greater, more powerful, than anything else we know about.
“that is a big yes as already posted twice, comprehension fail”
You don’t even care that people can read the previous exchange and know that you never previously answered the question. What a funny little man you are.
Anyway, we now have the answer….JB thinks that anyone who believes that some God-like figure created the universe is retarded. I really thought JB would make some distinction between young and old earth beliefs, but subtlety of thought isn’t one of JB’s strong suits.
So let’s think about the type of person JB thinks is retarded – Obama, Rudd, Beazley, the Clintons, Blair, JFK……..all retarded. What a fool.
lets have a statement from each of just what they believe without you putting crap into their mouths. even then they only wish not to upset the population
i know many xtians and all of them accept the big bang theory and do not claim that a god kick started it.
they tell me that they only have a faith that a god exists
those who respect my non believe are afforded the same respect
“even then they only wish not to upset the population”
So the JB’s logic runs like this. People who believe a God-like being created the universe are retarded but those who clearly aren’t retarded are lying about their beliefs so as to not “upset the population”.
What a strange little world this strange little man inhabits.
if you claim that obama rudd etc all are creationists of any type then you are saying that they believe that whenever there is an earthquake, tsunami or hurricane, flood etc in which thousands are killed then they believe that their god was responsible because with your quote below there is no escaping that conclusion.
“OK, I’ll answer…one of us needs to be civilised here. When I said greater intelligence I was referring to the belief that there is a guiding intelligence behind the universe that is greater, more powerful, than anything else we know about”
A 2009 Neilson poll found that 38% of Australian Christians believe the Genesis story and a further 47% favour the God of Design ie 85% of Australian Christians believe God created the world.
Yet JB “know[s] many xtians and all of them accept the big bang theory and do not claim that a god kick started it.
So we are faced with a difficult choice – by some miracle the Christians JB knows all fall into a tiny subset of the Christian group OR JB is FOS and just making it up as he goes along. Actually not a difficult choice at all.
out of about 22 million australians only 1.8 million attend a christian church yet you claim that i could not possible know christians who do not believe in creation
crap where i live most would write christian if asked yet none of them would believe in fairy tales nor that god created and controls the universe
Yet again you demonstrate a wonderful inability to follow a simple line of logic. We weren’t discussing how many people were or professed to be Christian, just how many Christians believe in a creationist God.
“because if people really believe what you claim then they would be in churches every day”
Well actually that isn’t at all true. Church attendance is not an indicator of belief and visa versa. That’s what the Reformation was all about, giving Christians a path to worship their God without the need for organised religion.
As I suspected, you really haven’t got the faintest idea about what Christians believe but feel, nonetheless, perfectly happy to pronounce these views (which you don’t understand) to be moronic.
“if you claim that obama rudd etc all are creationists of any type then you are saying that they believe that whenever there is an earthquake, tsunami or hurricane, flood etc in which thousands are killed then they believe that their god was responsible because with your quote below there is no escaping that conclusion.”
Well it might be inescapable for someone of limited understanding like you but it is not the conclusion that all Christians would draw. There are any number of ways Christians can rationalise away the bad things that happen in the world eg Satan, God’s higher purpose, God doesn’t manage the world in the minutiae (the so-called Clockwork Universe) and lots more. So again you should see that criticising and drawing conclusions about things you misunderstand is fraught and usually erroneous.
I’m trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you aren’t as clueless as your posts show and that instead you are simply trying to muddy the waters to hide your errors. But I must admit you are making it hard.
“so you see a poll as an indication for religious conviction”
No I don’t. I quoted the poll to demonstrate that the vast majority of Christians in Aust believe God created the universe. This was in refutation of your unresearched and unsupported assertion to the contrary. So far your only evidence that most Christians “do not claim that a god kick started it” is some (fictitious?) salesman.
I am not a Christian and have never said anything to the contrary. But, unlike you, I have familiarised myself with their opinions and know that those who believe in a creationist deity aren’t retards.
Your close-minded rants are comical and not a little pathetic. It is the core of the totalitarian to shout that those who hold different views are not just in disagreement but are moronic, retarded, “a blight on humanity’. Its simplistic to hold such views without actually understanding the other’s beliefs.
A simplistic totalitarian is the most dangerous of creatures.
too funny Pachauri was recommended by the Bush admin because they thought he would be a lame duck, big mistake so now they need to try to undermine Pachauri
what has come from the IPCC AR4 Wg1 in my estimation is that the reports are too far apart, by the time they come out they are already behind the science and the positive feedbacks, eg Arctic and permafrost melt,
we need small yearly updates as the science advances to fast for the process
John, I generally agree with you, but you lost me on one point. You suggesting that being the Antichrist and being a creationist are incompatible?
On the contrary, I find it hard to imagine that the Antichrist is not a believer in a Creator.
This would be like the Italian who was accused by the inquisition of believing in the devil, but not in God. He regarded it as an absurdity.
Too ridiculous, Smiff….a gross and offensive generalisation. I assume you’ve rigorously sampled thousands of scientists in person and found them to be stupid and venal in the main,eh? How do write stuff like that and expect it to be seen as reasonable?
“If you talk to then privately,they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t know what clouds and aerosols are doing” Crap, they acknowledge publicly that the effect of both is complex,but they know full well why they are complex. They know what clouds and aerosols do,its the balance of where and when that is hard to predict.
Basic and complex models of the last forty years predict warming under AGHGs emission, and guess what, we are warming!!!
OK, you’re quoting Lovelock, but the same applies. I would not presume to denigrate the competence of workers I have not personally met and worked with.
I paraphrased Lovelock, but he is broadly correct. They keep their mouths shut and big business journalists lie for them. They don’t have much choice, tbh. Stay quiet or lose your career.
Audacity.org claims to be a “research company for construction industry professionals questioning the assumptions and limitations of British development”. With close ties to the Living Marxism group – its directors are all associates of the network – it opposes environmental restraints on development and sustainability.
Audacity argues that society suffers when the polluter is made to pay, and is up front about its antagonism to community groups opposing urban sprawl. Its website states that “Audacity is a campaigning company that advocates developing the man-made environment, free from the burden of ‘sustainababble’ and ‘communitwaddle’.” [1]
“Audacity challenges advocates of sustainability to justify their pessimistic views, as well as the regulation and litigation these views encourage. Have any of them actually read the 28 Articles and two Annexes of the 11 December 1997 Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate – the Kyoto Protocol?,” it states. [2]
“If they don’t know about clouds..” Hey,Smiff,stop projecting. They know a hell of a lot about clouds and aerosols,enough to define quite well what they need to improve knowledge of. You try to frame the situation as one of general ignorance. You should know better.
Ask yourself how basic physical models get the sign of the global trend right: how much do you have to know about clouds?
“Rightwing creationists defend big business” Well,yes, Canadian economist Ross McKitrick being an example….but what’s that got to do with your dopey generalisations about cloud and aerosol knowledge?
Australia has ‘much to lose’ from climate change Sydney Morning Herald
IPCC climate change report: Human role in global warming now even clearer ABC Online
Govt pressured to make deeper CO2 cuts Sydney Morning Herald
Government accepts climate report but declares carbon tax was ‘wrong policy’ Herald Sun, Australia
U.N. Affirms Human Role in Global Warming The Wall Street Journal
Science solid on global warming, IPCC declares The Australian
Global warming ‘extremely likely’ man-made: IPCC The Australian
Coalition urged to raise emissions reduction target in wake of IPCC report The Guardian
IPCC climate report: humans ‘dominant cause’ of warming BBC
Human influence on climate change a ‘clarion call’ to global community Irish Times
Scientists more convinced mankind is main cause of warming Reuters
IPCC: Global warming is getting deeper The Telegraph
Climate Change Report “Gives No Reason for Optimism” News International
Climate panel forecast: Higher seas, temperatures The Seattle Times
UN panel says humans causing global warming Bangkok Post
IPCC report: The financial markets are the only hope in the race to stop global warming The Independent
UN panel’s climate report sparks concern AFP
Around the world, strong reactions to climate-change report Globe and Mail
An ‘alarm clock moment’ for the world: IPCC SBS
Climate change scientists ‘unequivocal’ in blaming man Herald Scotland
UN panel 95% sure humans causing global warming Economic Times
Tony Abbott will struggle to defend his climate change scepticism in the light of a tough new UN sponsored report by the world’s top climate scientists.
Australia’s new Prime Minister has now abandoned his earlier assertion that climate change is “crap.”
But Mr Abbott’s words and actions, since his election to that office on September 7, show that he is not yet convinced that rising carbon dioxide levels pose serious dangers to future generations.
These include both his determination to scrap the previous government’s carbon tax – a key plank in his election policies – and his early decision to axe the Climate Commission, a Federal government body set up to gather reliable information on climate change.
A glance at the report which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in Stockholm tonight, might cause stronger men than Tony Abbott to entertain second thoughts.
had to google the latest on the bogons seems that they are carrying agricultural arsenic in their systems and may be killing native mammals in the south
source of arsenic not yet found but does not seem to be industrial
So what will make a difference? When will science begin to count again? Perhaps we have evolved to respond only to immediate visible threats to our own safety, and so we are simply not programmed to react to abstract threats some way off into the future.
If so, the grim truth is that the world will give up its childish tendency to block its ears against the scientists’ unpleasant warnings only when we see large numbers of white-shrouded American bodies, the victims of climatic disasters
john you read Jo Nova and Curry more than I do. I read WUWT daily (or close to it) but don’t read Lucia’s daily and rarely read any others. I also read Tamino and RC once in a while. You’re simply projecting again.
The difference between you and me is that I put quotes around something I’m quoting from another source and almost always provide a link. You tend to just cut and paste without any attribution or link to the source.
Young Bill.
You have not posted an original thought on this site. You are simply parroting the gibberish of our enemies.
Unless you can provide a relevant new idea, experiment, results, data, etc. you are simply being a nuisance.
It’s time for you to pack up and go home.
(I think I hear you mother calling you)
Unfortunately the statement “the debate is over” is open to many different interpretations, as indicated by the comments on this post. Personally, as one who favours rapid and strong action to stop global warming, I do not find this slogan helpful. It only leaves us open to claims that we are stifling free speech. There are always going to be uncertainties when it comes to understanding and predicting the behaviour of global systems. It is a question of how we manage and protect against systemic risk, based on the best available knowledge at any given point in time. Right now, the latest IPCC report represents the best available knowledge — probably one of the most comprehensive scientific reviews of any phenomenon ever undertaken. There will always be ongoing debate about certain aspects of the science, and of course about the appropriate policy responses.
you indoctrinate children to believe that a god created and controls the universe and then have to turn around and accept that this is not the case”
Anglicans
“the Christian faith is certainly about personal salvation. But it is more than that: Christianity is first a foremost a concern for the whole created order – biodiversity and business; politics and pollution; rivers, religion and rainforests. The coming of Jesus brought everything of God into the sphere of time and space, and everything of time and space into the sphere of God. All things meet together in him: Jesus is the point of reconciliation. Therefore, if Christians believe in Jesus they must recognise that concern for climate change is not an optional extra but a core matter of faith.”
I congratulate the churches for trying to get the message out there, the problem is that it contradicts what they have been preaching for 2000 years, that god is in charge.Instead of this theological contradiction they should fess up and admit that for climate change we are on our own.
You see that a lot with religious people. If they live through something then god saved them and like you say god must like them better. If that’s the case then god must hate little children because a lot of them get abused and even massacred. Not exactly the normal topic for this blog though.
the whole religious hierarchy is moronic, the most totalitarian institutes on earth, where your every moved is watched by some figment of your imagination in the sky who will punish you eternally for not even believing this shit,
yet you claim that calling out these morons is a totalitarian view
it is you implying that most christians are moronic in believing in a god of creation.
“”The fact that Elizabeth didn’t go there for some reason speaks to me of work by the Holy Spirit,” Mrs O’Brien said.”
obviously god prefers her to those killed
and you try to turn that into some kind of throwaway it was a condemnation of her absurd and disgusting attitude that her god chose to save her daughter while allowing others to perish,
your comment was just as insulting to those killed
Eric Worrall says he knows what the real threat is. Maybe he’s looking forward to chasing an antelope when it’s 50º degrees (122º F) in the shade:
September 29, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Its obvious that the real threat is global cooling – shorter growing seasons, unseasonal frosts, hardship and hunger.
Humans have nothing to fear from a warmer climate, we are one of the most hot climate adapted animals on the planet. In anything except the baking tropical savannahs and jungles of our distant ancestors, we have to wear clothes to protect us from the cold.
Why are we so well adapted to the heat? It goes back to how our ancestors used to hunt. We couldn’t run faster than an antelope, but we could run further than an antelope, in hotter weather, until the antelope ran out of steam and simply lay down and died.
For a short while I thought Eric (smif) was trying to play the devil’s advocate but further reading makes me think he’s serious. As for all the bollocks about antelope hunting, he doesn’t seem to realise that idea is mostly untested and really an hypothesis. If we were truly adapted to the heat, we’d probably have two humps and enjoy grazing on thorn bush and twigs. Or, we’d have scales, crawl around on our bellies, possess a rather fetching frilled neck and lay eggs. Maybe I’m an Inuit?
To live as endurance hunters humans had to evolve nakedness and sweat glands. Sure, we moved beyond endurance hunting and donned clothing, but the physiological constraints imposed on our bodies by heat remain.
Without artificial aids we’re pretty much cactus in many parts of a world that is on average a few degrees warmer, but idiots like Worrall don’t seem to grok that it’s not the few degrees average that affect human physiology, it’s the concomitant extreme peaks of temperature that are the problem.
Quite apart from the overall effect that warming has on the biosphere and climatology in general, of course…
… And it’s those extremes Eric and company continue to ignore or seem not to notice. The fact that new record high peak and average temperatures are being set on a regular basis just doesn’t register with them.
Watching the Deniers 
Odd. Somehow I think I’ve heard “The Debate Is Over” someplace before.
– MJM
There will be shouting. But there are no grounds for debate.
The debate is over; both sides have declared victory.
Anyone that truly believes the #debateisover is delusional. The debate was never about whether the climate has warmed – it has – or even whether man has contributed to the warming – we have – the debate is about what can and should be done and at what cost.
Some people just don’t get it.
but bill you believe that the planet is self regulating for temperature so that would exclude you from a rational debate about costs,
just this week a QLD coal power stn has shut down in collinsville and solar is being built to supply about 6000 homes,
the reason is that without the local coal mine now closed (not viable) the coal powered stn is also not economically viable , wind in australia is now also cheaper than starting up new coal plants,
and please every day we have deniers claiming that the planet has not warmed and others claiming that it is not due to humans or even that CO2 does not cause warming
they are all your deniers friends, you say that you accept the warming and human contribution then turn around and claim a magical, creationist belief that god made the planet self regulating,
so claiming that the debate was never about etc is more of your drivel
would be interesting if bill, twodicks and k largo all believed exactly the same
1 that the planet is warming
2 that it is due partly to humans
3 that the planet is self regulating for temperature
lets see any response ?
The question is why isn’t the coal mine viable? And if it’s shut down then what are people doing for electricity TODAY?
I’ve already posted showing just how dependent Australia is on coal. It’s not like one mine or one coal fired power plant closing is going to change anything. “A drop in the bucket” comes to mind.
You’re in such denial that you can’t see the truth even when it’s right in front of your eyes.
“…showing just how dependent Australia is on coal…” It’s a millstone around our neck. We’ve become complacent,defensive and scared of moving past it, thanks to industry and government PR. A future livable climate is at stake, and conservative authoritarian governments have no plans but to gamble on coal,and manipulate the sentiments of dependent communities,who will be abandoned anyway when each deposit is winding down, as history teaches.
In the case of Collinsville, Xstrata has decided to close the mine to make an example of the town and the CFMEU for daring to disagree with the workplace agreement offered them.You do as you’re toldwhen the market is soft. Xsrtrata have decided that 2 bill is not enough….they’ll park the mine indefinitely. And the imaginative giants who run Queensland just want to open more mines ASAP, as this is the only way forward they will allow. The softening market will drive down wages and conditions and lead to watering down of environmental safeguards, and captive towns and workers will argue for the short-termism of this moribund model.
You have a very strange definition of “viable” john!
“The shutdown by the global mining conglomerate, which generated $112 billion in revenue and profits of more than $2 billion in the first six months of 2013, is devastating the town of Collinsville, whose population of 2,000 depends heavily on the mine. Many people face being forced to leave the area, and local businesses are likely to collapse.”
The mine generated $2 billion in profits and you claim it’s not viable? Seriously?
They won’t need to worry about building a solar plant to power the town because it will die without the mine. All these people are impacted by this corporation’s decision and you’re celebrating the decision. Now we see who’s side you’re really on. The workers are getting screwed and you’re dancing on their graves. Nice.
No stupid the coal mining industry claimed it was not viable, they do not give a shit about the workers, people still live there and need power, you want them to go withit power, why?
How long will the town exist without the coal mine?
Like I said you were celebrating the closure of the mine not giving one care to the people that lost their jobs or the businesses that depend on those employees just to survive.
Pretty heartless.
“wind in australia is now also cheaper than starting up new coal plants”
We can all just leave it to the market now that wind is cheaper.
Somehow I don’t think so.
I’d love to see some valid evidence that wind is cheaper in Australia particularly when you factor in the additional cost for backup generation.
“when you factor in the additional cost for backup generation”
Indeed. The pronouncements that wind or solar can generate kWh cheaper than existing generators when the wind is blowing or the Sun is shining ignore the fact that pinching business from existing generators at those times is not going to lower costs of existing generators much but will reduce their revenue by much more.
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant
radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean
surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high
confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than
6°C (medium confidence)”
So high confidence less than 1Degc but only medium confidence that it will not be greater than 6DegC
I think that inaction would be foolhardy
SPM6 is interesting, shows the difference between models with and without anthropogenic warming
Indeed, still going over this – that will be the next post.
Mike
If you tune a model to mimic observed warming and you include in that model assumptions about response to GHGs then just guess what happens if you run that model without the change in GHG forcing.
Should be obvious but it sounds like you guys need to read about it.
You again show no understanding of how GCMs run. The models are set to initial conditions,they’re not set to mimic warming. Warming emerges from their inputs, they are set to mean climate then perturbed with the physics of forcings under varying emission-by-date scenarios.This is useful background
So you don’t believe that models are tuned? Really?
Geez they even state it right there in your link in the section on tuning:
“are used in adjusting the models to match the data”
I called it “mimic observed warming” they call it “matching the data”. The models are TUNED.
If you tune a model by changing a parameter so the model output “match the data” and then you remove one of the forcings, in this case GHG increases, then obviously the model will no longer “match the data”.
Did I really have to explain that to you?
Looks like you need to read the whole thing before shooting your mouth off, Bill. What is ‘tuning’,what is ‘tuned’ and what is not? Removing the growth of GHGs [setting it to pre-industrial CO2 levels] is not ‘tuning’, it is removing a forcing. Then the model is run.
This is a perfect example from bill of how the creationist, conspiracy theorist mind works
one day the deniers claim the models are all wrong and then the next the implication is that they are correct but only because of fiddling.
weird logic, fact is bill that the model projections are there for all to see and run for decades into the future
in bill’s mind the greenhouse CO2 theory and physics become nothing more than assumptions, initial tuning becomes fiddling.
bills says look i found the word tuning. FFS
Go back and read it again Nick. The models are tuned to match the data. That’s with GHG forcings included. The model output matches the data. Removing the increase in GHG forcings and the model output no longer matches the data. No surprise.
have a look at those models they show that you have not even looked at them nor understand, all forcings are included in both except GHG,or human activity one matches the current global temperature the others shows what natural variation and solar influence would have produced.
if the GHG model did not reproduce the current reality then you would have a point,
bottom line, your rambling
You seem to be implying that YOU actually understand CGMs john and that is very very funny. As if.
Any tuning is to some physical factors which clearly have input into climate, in matching past observations [a redundancy,I know, but I am trying to remove any ambiguity]. The tuning is not arbitary,it is physics based,basically upscaling. The past information sets the initial conditions. Then the model is run into the future,and is not interfered with or nudged,with the exception that a projected increase in a GHG is timed into it,say 1.5ppm/annum or 2.5ppm/annum….[or as a control/comparison,the GHG is kept flat at pre-indust level]. And a solar cycle is factored in as well. That addition interacts with the set physics of the model and each run produces a climate realisation without interference. They all warm,they all produce weather [inter-annual or inter-decadal variation]. Given the unpredictable timing of ENSO events, they are all ‘wrong’ at those time scales,but the projections are about the long term. Over the century the atmosphere warms.
As has been observed,in correspondence with simple models from the 1980s [or earlier],the physics predicts warming when we add a persistent GHG to an earth atmosphere..Gee,what do you think Arrhenius did in making a prediction from the basic physics and observation of coal use in 1896? He ‘modelled’ a warming. Spot on!
Foolish people are arguing that because we cannot predict the exact timing of ENSO [and despite knowing what it is and does as a mechanism and as a regional climate/weather influence],and because we cannot exactly model deep ocean partitioning,and because we do not know exactly how long each solar cycle will be, that we cannot meaningful predict climate trend. Sorry,but we have predicted it: look at Hansen 1988 or Broecker earlier…or Callendar earlier again.
bill says shit john understands this, must try to distort that somehow, ah
this will do it , ” drivel drivel “
look at this
Nick says:
September 28, 2013 at 12:26 pm
You again show no understanding of how GCMs run. The models are set to initial conditions,they’re not set to mimic warming. Warming emerges from their inputs, they are set to mean climate then perturbed with the physics of forcings under varying emission-by-date scenarios.This is useful background
Reply
Bill Jamison says:
September 28, 2013 at 12:29 pm
So you don’t believe that models are tuned? Really?
nick is quite clear on what is done,” The models are set to initial conditions,they’re not set to mimic warming. Warming emerges from thier inputs”
does bill accept that fact, No he just veers off to now claim “So you don’t believe that models are tuned? Really?
What do you expect?
Bill is very young.
Logical thinking comes with age (to most people).
john it’s a shame you spend so much time posting and so little time learning. From the RC link that Nick posted in the section on tuning models:
“are used in adjusting the models to match the data”
The models are tuned so their output matches “the data” just like RC states. Look up hindcast. It’s one method used to validate models – can they successfully reproduce observed warming? If they can’t then it’s assumed they lack skill.
This stuff is pretty basic and yet you guys fail to understand it. It’s not about “critical thinking” (which you guys seem to lack) but rather basic understanding.
It’s like john byatt thinking that all months have the same mean temperature not realizing that monthly means over the base period are different from the annual mean. He thought that the monthly means HAD to be the same as the annual mean when in fact they simply average out to the annual mean and vary by 3.8C: January is 12C and July is 15.8C (combined land+sea mean surface temperature) for the base period of 1902-2000.
That lack of basic understanding is why john claimed that a January monthly anomaly of 1.2C was “warmer” than a July with a monthly anomaly of 0.6C. Not even close.
I just don’t understand how someone that spends so much time posting about climate can be so ignorant of basic facts.
The models are tweaked in physics so their INPUT matches the past data [to establish initial conditions], not so that their OUTPUT matches. The OUTPUT emerges from the initial conditions and the variables timed in.
Bill gets wiped out again and resorts to his old anomaly rant
bill does this everytime
makes a claim
finds he is wrong
goes to the link
comes back and then claims the exact opposite of his first claim
with bill it is heads you lose tails i win
it is my fault that i did not pay much attention to the baseline but the maths error came about purely from using bills original NOAA link
Right your math errors were caused by NOAA. That’s a great claim. Just can’t admit you didn’t understand such a basic concept and instead have to deflect and minimize and shift blame.
you gave 13,9 it should have been 14Degc
The source I checked when I posted had it at 13.9. Probably a rounding issue. Not a big deal either way.
No it was my fault i had used the 13.9 with the giss data, was not blaming you or NOAA,
It doesn’t matter if it’s 13.9C or 14C the issue was the difference between the mean temperature for January and July is 3.8C and that’s what you failed to understand. You thought all months had the same mean temperature when they don’t.
What makes that more interesting is that the difference is almost solely due to land temperature during the northern hemisphere summer when the earth is farthest away from the sun. Of course it should be obvious that the ocean temperature doesn’t change much globally on a month to month basis while it certainly does for land. The difference is substantial too: January is 2.8C while July is 14.3C for a difference of 11.5C.
Its not what i failed to understand it was what i had not read
what i love is that you still have not got over it, thus every time your trashed you have to mention it, counting the numbers of times that you have mention it means you have been wrong at least five times to date
you were wrong about natural variation, self regulating earth, model tuning,
plus at least another three or four mentioned earlier
so should i now go back and find them all, why bother every one here except some creationist wanker has you sussed
I can quote you if you’d like. You said that all months have to have the same mean to match the annual mean. That was WRONG. Don’t pretend when it’s easy to prove what you said and show that you were wrong.
yes because i had not read it, but i do not believe that the planet is self regulating for temperature which is almost a direct quote from the cornwall alliance website
Quick, change the subject so you don’t look stupid.
bill we have had two of your denier mates here confess to being creationists
klem and two dicks
isn’t time you stopped the charade and admitted your own creationist stance, you claim to be an atheist then praise god and give an almost direct quote from the cornwall alliance creationist website .
Don’t you get tired of lying john? I mean seriously, how badly do you need me to be a creationist that you’re willing to lie about it? If you had evidence of me “praising god” then you would have posted it after finding it on my Facebook page. But you didn’t find it because it’s not there.
You really don’t have any morals when it comes to posting john and that’s unfortunate. It’s shameful really.
update at RC
Update & Correction (28 Sept): The upper value of the sea-level range is 98 cm, not 97 cm – I overlooked the fact that IPCC corrected this between the final draft and the approved version of the SPM.
Some media wrongly report a rise of “only” up to 82 cm by the year 2100. That is a misunderstanding: 82 cm is the average for the period 2081-2100, not the level reached in 2100. Both the curves up to 2100 and those 20-year averages are shown in Fig. 3 above. Note that the additional rise of up to 16 cm in the final decade illustrates the horrendous rates of rise we can get by the end of the century with unmitigated emissions.
It is also worth noting that the 98 cm is the upper value of a “likely” range (66% probability to be within that range). As IPCC also notes, we could end up “several tens of centimeters” higher if the marine-based parts of the Antarctic ice sheet become unstable. Leading ice experts, like Richard Alley and Rob De Conto, consider this a serious risk”
From the Guardian, following climategate. James Lovelock’s excoriating view of the lying, dumb, little scumbags who do modern climate science.
on CRU scientists
I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn’t want to do anything else other than be a scientist.
They’re not like that nowadays. They don’t give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science.
I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done
on computer models
I remember when the Americans sent up a satellite to measure ozone and it started saying that a hole was developing over the South Pole. But the damn fool scientists were so mad on the models that they said the satellite must have a fault. We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they’re not complete models.
They’re based more or less entirely on geophysics. They don’t take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the responses of the living stuff on the planet. So I don’t see how they can accurately predict the climate.
on predicting temperatures
If you look back on climate history it sometimes took anything up to 1,000 years before a change in one of the variables kicked in and had an effect. And during those 1,000 years the temperature could have gone in the other direction to what you thought it should have done. What right have the scientists with their models to say that in 2100 the temperature will have risen by 5C?
The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show.
We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear.
on scientists
Sometimes their view might be quite right, but it might also be pure propaganda. This is wrong. They should ask the scientists, but the problem is scientists won’t speak. If we had some really good scientists it wouldn’t be a problem, but we’ve got so many dumbos who just can’t say anything, or who are afraid to say anything. They’re not free agents.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock?
this is pretty much what the flying monkeys and other retards at WUWT are doing, nothing to actually rebut the report so are just rehashing climategate etc, must be discouraging for them when they are hit with reality, even the mandatory creationist comments are there,
as Lovelock has stated, humans are too stupid to do anything to stop it
Climate science promotion is mindless corporate garbage only a right wing simpleton would believe.
The UN is a tool of American corporations (since the US government threatened to defund the UN) . The IPCC is a tool of the oil industry. Pachauri was an oil executive, even while head of the IPCC.
Wikipedia
Pachauri was on the Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation (January 1999 to September 2003). On 20 April 2002, Pachauri was elected Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations panel established by the WMO and UNEP to assess information relevant for understanding climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachaur
A Gore was the senator for Occidental Petroleum.
Here is a BBC story about an Amazon tribe called the U’wa. They threatened to commit mass suicide if an oil company destroyed their land. Al Gore stepped in on behalf of the oil company . He is a political front for Occidental Petroleum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/677105.stm
you read too many comics eric
http://desmogblog.com/hoover-institute-and-the-art-of-slander
Are you a creationist ?
From the IPCC itself
Dr Pachauri has also been associated with academic and research institutes. He is on the Board of Directors of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (June 2006) and also on the Board of Directors of the NTPC Limited (January 2006). He was on the Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (January 1999 to September 2003);
Click to access briefcv_pachauri.pdf
As a Jesusland colonist, you won’t realise that the BBC is the ultimate truth in the world. Seriously.
What a dickhead statement, i can give you numerous sceptic and denier opinion pieces from the ABC
Creationist , you protest too much probably why you have used an unique signature for this blog.
here smiff your mob the corwell alliance
creationist retards
We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.[6][7]
Prominent signatories of the declaration include climate scientist Roy Spencer, former climatologist David Legates, economist Ross McKitrick, meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, television meteorologist James Spann, and Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center.[8]
“creationist retards”
So anyone who believes that a greater intelligence created the universe is a retard?
Not just wrong, but a retard?
i knew that would bring them out of the woodwork,
Whats this greater intelligence crap ?
“i knew that would bring them out of the woodwork,”
Just asking a question, JB. Its always fun to watch you avoid answering. A man of abuse, slogans and little else.
Not just wrong, but a retard
” Its always fun to watch you avoid answering. A man of abuse, ”
you mean your answer to whats this greater intelligence crap.
nope nothing there, avoided the question
So your not going to answer the question then. That’s retarded. 🙂
Let’s try one more time….is it your view that anyone who believes the universe was created by some intelligence is retarded?
(anticipated response…childish abuse)
is it your view that anyone who believes the universe was created by some intelligence is retarded?
that is a big yes as already posted twice, comprehension fail
now your answer
to
whats this greater intelligence crap?
“you mean your answer to whats this greater intelligence crap.”
OK, I’ll answer…one of us needs to be civilised here. When I said greater intelligence I was referring to the belief that there is a guiding intelligence behind the universe that is greater, more powerful, than anything else we know about.
then you are a retard
you dismiss climate science which has millions of peer reviewed science papers to back it
yet accept this nonsense from the books of ancient tribes with a foreskin fetish
“that is a big yes as already posted twice, comprehension fail”
You don’t even care that people can read the previous exchange and know that you never previously answered the question. What a funny little man you are.
Anyway, we now have the answer….JB thinks that anyone who believes that some God-like figure created the universe is retarded. I really thought JB would make some distinction between young and old earth beliefs, but subtlety of thought isn’t one of JB’s strong suits.
So let’s think about the type of person JB thinks is retarded – Obama, Rudd, Beazley, the Clintons, Blair, JFK……..all retarded. What a fool.
way ahead of you fella
lets have a statement from each of just what they believe without you putting crap into their mouths. even then they only wish not to upset the population
i know many xtians and all of them accept the big bang theory and do not claim that a god kick started it.
they tell me that they only have a faith that a god exists
those who respect my non believe are afforded the same respect
you creationists are a blight on humanity
“then you are a retard”
Actually I haven’t said what I believe. I’ve just been asking questions.
young an old earth beliefs?, have you no idea of the number of different creation beliefs that now exist? it ain’t two
unlike you jg most people here can read here
J Giddeon says:
September 29, 2013 at 1:58 am
“i knew that would bring them out of the woodwork,”
Just asking a question, JB. Its always fun to watch you avoid answering. A man of abuse, slogans and little else.
john byatt says:
September 29, 2013 at 2:05 am
Not just wrong, but a retard
that was the second time i stated that
“even then they only wish not to upset the population”
So the JB’s logic runs like this. People who believe a God-like being created the universe are retarded but those who clearly aren’t retarded are lying about their beliefs so as to not “upset the population”.
What a strange little world this strange little man inhabits.
if you claim that obama rudd etc all are creationists of any type then you are saying that they believe that whenever there is an earthquake, tsunami or hurricane, flood etc in which thousands are killed then they believe that their god was responsible because with your quote below there is no escaping that conclusion.
“OK, I’ll answer…one of us needs to be civilised here. When I said greater intelligence I was referring to the belief that there is a guiding intelligence behind the universe that is greater, more powerful, than anything else we know about”
creationists of any type are morons
A 2009 Neilson poll found that 38% of Australian Christians believe the Genesis story and a further 47% favour the God of Design ie 85% of Australian Christians believe God created the world.
Yet JB “know[s] many xtians and all of them accept the big bang theory and do not claim that a god kick started it.
So we are faced with a difficult choice – by some miracle the Christians JB knows all fall into a tiny subset of the Christian group OR JB is FOS and just making it up as he goes along. Actually not a difficult choice at all.
here is the Census figures for 2012,
now goggle and find out how many attend churches because if people really believe what you claim then they would be in churches every day
i know insurance salesmen and used car salesmen who joined churches for the customers only, they think it is all crap but worth it
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/CO-61
out of about 22 million australians only 1.8 million attend a christian church yet you claim that i could not possible know christians who do not believe in creation
crap where i live most would write christian if asked yet none of them would believe in fairy tales nor that god created and controls the universe
What a bunch of retards
JG claims that Obama is a creationist yet a large part of the us thinks he is the effin antichrist
headgear on
“here is the Census figures for 2012,” and so on.
Yet again you demonstrate a wonderful inability to follow a simple line of logic. We weren’t discussing how many people were or professed to be Christian, just how many Christians believe in a creationist God.
“because if people really believe what you claim then they would be in churches every day”
Well actually that isn’t at all true. Church attendance is not an indicator of belief and visa versa. That’s what the Reformation was all about, giving Christians a path to worship their God without the need for organised religion.
As I suspected, you really haven’t got the faintest idea about what Christians believe but feel, nonetheless, perfectly happy to pronounce these views (which you don’t understand) to be moronic.
“if you claim that obama rudd etc all are creationists of any type then you are saying that they believe that whenever there is an earthquake, tsunami or hurricane, flood etc in which thousands are killed then they believe that their god was responsible because with your quote below there is no escaping that conclusion.”
Well it might be inescapable for someone of limited understanding like you but it is not the conclusion that all Christians would draw. There are any number of ways Christians can rationalise away the bad things that happen in the world eg Satan, God’s higher purpose, God doesn’t manage the world in the minutiae (the so-called Clockwork Universe) and lots more. So again you should see that criticising and drawing conclusions about things you misunderstand is fraught and usually erroneous.
“We weren’t discussing how many people were or professed to be Christian, just how many Christians believe in a creationist God.’
so you see a poll as an indication for religious conviction
yet deny that church attendance has any implication for belief
the reformation as “giving Christians a path to worship their God without the need for organised religion.
yes they are called Lutherans
“There are any number of ways Christians can rationalise away the bad things that happen in the world eg Satan,
what a moronic statement
this all powerful god of yours who controls everything cannot even control one of his own angels? FFS
that is just more evidence of moronic beliefs
http://www.theage.com.au/national/faith-what-australians-believe-in-20091218-l5qy.html
“And even many non-believers still identify themselves as Christian by background.
JB,
I’m trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you aren’t as clueless as your posts show and that instead you are simply trying to muddy the waters to hide your errors. But I must admit you are making it hard.
“so you see a poll as an indication for religious conviction”
No I don’t. I quoted the poll to demonstrate that the vast majority of Christians in Aust believe God created the universe. This was in refutation of your unresearched and unsupported assertion to the contrary. So far your only evidence that most Christians “do not claim that a god kick started it” is some (fictitious?) salesman.
I am not a Christian and have never said anything to the contrary. But, unlike you, I have familiarised myself with their opinions and know that those who believe in a creationist deity aren’t retards.
Your close-minded rants are comical and not a little pathetic. It is the core of the totalitarian to shout that those who hold different views are not just in disagreement but are moronic, retarded, “a blight on humanity’. Its simplistic to hold such views without actually understanding the other’s beliefs.
A simplistic totalitarian is the most dangerous of creatures.
let me help you out here phone
Q Are you christian?
A yes
Q do you believe that god created the universe?
now what person after just claiming to be a christian would say No when it is the foundation of the bloody religion,
point. people tell fibs to pollsters
too funny Pachauri was recommended by the Bush admin because they thought he would be a lame duck, big mistake so now they need to try to undermine Pachauri
what has come from the IPCC AR4 Wg1 in my estimation is that the reports are too far apart, by the time they come out they are already behind the science and the positive feedbacks, eg Arctic and permafrost melt,
we need small yearly updates as the science advances to fast for the process
“Pachauri was recommended by the Bush admin because they thought he would be a lame duck’
and instead they got a moron…
“Pachauri dismissed a report stating the 2035 claim was wrong as “voodoo science”.”
Why Pachauri called V Raina a propagator of voodoo science
http://www.desmogblog.com/vijay-kumar-raina
John, I generally agree with you, but you lost me on one point. You suggesting that being the Antichrist and being a creationist are incompatible?
On the contrary, I find it hard to imagine that the Antichrist is not a believer in a Creator.
This would be like the Italian who was accused by the inquisition of believing in the devil, but not in God. He regarded it as an absurdity.
that being the Antichrist and being a creationist are incompatible?
no it was a comment on how the poor bastard cannot win either way
here is another one steve
http://www.inquisitr.com/935849/president-obama-member-of-muslim-brotherhood-egypt-paper-claims-to-have-proof/
Too ridiculous, Smiff….a gross and offensive generalisation. I assume you’ve rigorously sampled thousands of scientists in person and found them to be stupid and venal in the main,eh? How do write stuff like that and expect it to be seen as reasonable?
“If you talk to then privately,they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t know what clouds and aerosols are doing” Crap, they acknowledge publicly that the effect of both is complex,but they know full well why they are complex. They know what clouds and aerosols do,its the balance of where and when that is hard to predict.
Basic and complex models of the last forty years predict warming under AGHGs emission, and guess what, we are warming!!!
OK, you’re quoting Lovelock, but the same applies. I would not presume to denigrate the competence of workers I have not personally met and worked with.
I paraphrased Lovelock, but he is broadly correct. They keep their mouths shut and big business journalists lie for them. They don’t have much choice, tbh. Stay quiet or lose your career.
“If you talk to them privately,they’re scared stiff
I can confirm that and they are very worried that sensitivity is much higher than 3Degc .
you do not even need to read between the lines to see just what stefan @ RC is saying
as long as you are aware of this
If they don’t know about clouds, they can’t predict anything. The whole thing is a Hollywood set with no substance.
most studies like this one find that clouds are likely positive, lets hope they are not strongly positive
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50199/abstract;jsessionid=D2D0CD01497E9FBA60D464C901040A3B.f04t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
eric smiff links to this mob on his nonsense blog
Audacity.org claims to be a “research company for construction industry professionals questioning the assumptions and limitations of British development”. With close ties to the Living Marxism group – its directors are all associates of the network – it opposes environmental restraints on development and sustainability.
Audacity argues that society suffers when the polluter is made to pay, and is up front about its antagonism to community groups opposing urban sprawl. Its website states that “Audacity is a campaigning company that advocates developing the man-made environment, free from the burden of ‘sustainababble’ and ‘communitwaddle’.” [1]
“Audacity challenges advocates of sustainability to justify their pessimistic views, as well as the regulation and litigation these views encourage. Have any of them actually read the 28 Articles and two Annexes of the 11 December 1997 Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate – the Kyoto Protocol?,” it states. [2]
“If they don’t know about clouds..” Hey,Smiff,stop projecting. They know a hell of a lot about clouds and aerosols,enough to define quite well what they need to improve knowledge of. You try to frame the situation as one of general ignorance. You should know better.
Ask yourself how basic physical models get the sign of the global trend right: how much do you have to know about clouds?
Right wing creationists defend big business. No surprise there.
“Rightwing creationists defend big business” Well,yes, Canadian economist Ross McKitrick being an example….but what’s that got to do with your dopey generalisations about cloud and aerosol knowledge?
Sou @ hotwhopper
the headlines
Australia has ‘much to lose’ from climate change Sydney Morning Herald
IPCC climate change report: Human role in global warming now even clearer ABC Online
Govt pressured to make deeper CO2 cuts Sydney Morning Herald
Government accepts climate report but declares carbon tax was ‘wrong policy’ Herald Sun, Australia
U.N. Affirms Human Role in Global Warming The Wall Street Journal
Science solid on global warming, IPCC declares The Australian
Global warming ‘extremely likely’ man-made: IPCC The Australian
Coalition urged to raise emissions reduction target in wake of IPCC report The Guardian
IPCC climate report: humans ‘dominant cause’ of warming BBC
Human influence on climate change a ‘clarion call’ to global community Irish Times
Scientists more convinced mankind is main cause of warming Reuters
IPCC: Global warming is getting deeper The Telegraph
Climate Change Report “Gives No Reason for Optimism” News International
Climate panel forecast: Higher seas, temperatures The Seattle Times
UN panel says humans causing global warming Bangkok Post
IPCC report: The financial markets are the only hope in the race to stop global warming The Independent
UN panel’s climate report sparks concern AFP
Around the world, strong reactions to climate-change report Globe and Mail
An ‘alarm clock moment’ for the world: IPCC SBS
Climate change scientists ‘unequivocal’ in blaming man Herald Scotland
UN panel 95% sure humans causing global warming Economic Times
http://privatebriefing.com.au/2013/09/27/memo-pmclimate-change-scepticism-is-now-harder-to-defend/
Tony Abbott will struggle to defend his climate change scepticism in the light of a tough new UN sponsored report by the world’s top climate scientists.
Australia’s new Prime Minister has now abandoned his earlier assertion that climate change is “crap.”
But Mr Abbott’s words and actions, since his election to that office on September 7, show that he is not yet convinced that rising carbon dioxide levels pose serious dangers to future generations.
These include both his determination to scrap the previous government’s carbon tax – a key plank in his election policies – and his early decision to axe the Climate Commission, a Federal government body set up to gather reliable information on climate change.
A glance at the report which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in Stockholm tonight, might cause stronger men than Tony Abbott to entertain second thoughts.
Maybe Tony will listen to the moths on the curtains at his AFP quarters?
had to google the latest on the bogons seems that they are carrying agricultural arsenic in their systems and may be killing native mammals in the south
source of arsenic not yet found but does not seem to be industrial
http://theconversation.com/ipcc-climate-trends-blueprints-for-tipping-points-in-earths-climate-18706
Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University
http://theconversation.com/global-warming-unequivocal-and-unprecedented-ipcc-18711
http://theconversation.com/time-to-change-how-the-ipcc-reports-18039
http://theconversation.com/ipcc-where-to-for-antarctica-and-the-southern-ocean-17767
few more there
https://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-will-make-no-difference-in-culture-of-denial-18588
So what will make a difference? When will science begin to count again? Perhaps we have evolved to respond only to immediate visible threats to our own safety, and so we are simply not programmed to react to abstract threats some way off into the future.
If so, the grim truth is that the world will give up its childish tendency to block its ears against the scientists’ unpleasant warnings only when we see large numbers of white-shrouded American bodies, the victims of climatic disasters
5 links in 8 minutes. Is that some kind of record? It obviously didn’t give you time to read a single one of them!
Read the lot sunshine and then put them up
did you?
more attention seeking from bill
“more attention seeking” says the man that posts 75% of the posts here usual nothing more than a cut and paste of someone else’s words.
that is your problem bill you read crap at watts , nova, curry and the blackboard then stuff it up when you try to show that it is your own idea.
i prefer to listen to experts not climate change deniers,
john you read Jo Nova and Curry more than I do. I read WUWT daily (or close to it) but don’t read Lucia’s daily and rarely read any others. I also read Tamino and RC once in a while. You’re simply projecting again.
that was easy
The difference between you and me is that I put quotes around something I’m quoting from another source and almost always provide a link. You tend to just cut and paste without any attribution or link to the source.
I provide heaps of link as you constantly whine about ,you hardly ever link
you read crap at watts and just paraphrase it and that is why you get it wrong
Yes you do provide heaps of links. You just don’t provide a quote and a link in the same post. When you quote you rarely provide attribution.
I’d love to see you quote some examples where I paraphrased anything from WUWT without a link.
Young Bill.
You have not posted an original thought on this site. You are simply parroting the gibberish of our enemies.
Unless you can provide a relevant new idea, experiment, results, data, etc. you are simply being a nuisance.
It’s time for you to pack up and go home.
(I think I hear you mother calling you)
thinning arctic ice video
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57605141/canadian-expedition-spotlights-thinning-arctic-sea-ice/
SA feels the heat
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-30/adelaide-disappears-into-dust-as-unseasonal-heat-hits-sa/4988118
Unfortunately the statement “the debate is over” is open to many different interpretations, as indicated by the comments on this post. Personally, as one who favours rapid and strong action to stop global warming, I do not find this slogan helpful. It only leaves us open to claims that we are stifling free speech. There are always going to be uncertainties when it comes to understanding and predicting the behaviour of global systems. It is a question of how we manage and protect against systemic risk, based on the best available knowledge at any given point in time. Right now, the latest IPCC report represents the best available knowledge — probably one of the most comprehensive scientific reviews of any phenomenon ever undertaken. There will always be ongoing debate about certain aspects of the science, and of course about the appropriate policy responses.
Thanks for your comments, food for thought!
agree that the debate is over is not helpful, would prefer ‘ The verdict is in
This is a big problem for the christian churches
you indoctrinate children to believe that a god created and controls the universe and then have to turn around and accept that this is not the case”
Anglicans
“the Christian faith is certainly about personal salvation. But it is more than that: Christianity is first a foremost a concern for the whole created order – biodiversity and business; politics and pollution; rivers, religion and rainforests. The coming of Jesus brought everything of God into the sphere of time and space, and everything of time and space into the sphere of God. All things meet together in him: Jesus is the point of reconciliation. Therefore, if Christians believe in Jesus they must recognise that concern for climate change is not an optional extra but a core matter of faith.”
I congratulate the churches for trying to get the message out there, the problem is that it contradicts what they have been preaching for 2000 years, that god is in charge.Instead of this theological contradiction they should fess up and admit that for climate change we are on our own.
“If you don’t tidy up after yourselves you won’t get your Jesus back” tough love from the big guy in the sky.
it’s up
Click to access CC.report.pdf
just how effin moronic is this?
about 48 killed in the Kenyan massacre,
this ladies daughter went to the market instead of the shopping center that day.
good luck? no it was god
“”The fact that Elizabeth didn’t go there for some reason speaks to me of work by the Holy Spirit,” Mrs O’Brien said.”
obviously god prefers her to those killed
You see that a lot with religious people. If they live through something then god saved them and like you say god must like them better. If that’s the case then god must hate little children because a lot of them get abused and even massacred. Not exactly the normal topic for this blog though.
“only the good die young”
Maybe God prefers her least.
the whole religious hierarchy is moronic, the most totalitarian institutes on earth, where your every moved is watched by some figment of your imagination in the sky who will punish you eternally for not even believing this shit,
yet you claim that calling out these morons is a totalitarian view
it is you implying that most christians are moronic in believing in a god of creation.
i have said that a large majority of them are not
J Giddeon says:
September 30, 2013 at 6:08 am
“only the good die young”
Maybe God prefers her least.
what a callous and idiotic dismissal of all these deaths
as opposed to “obviously god prefers her to those killed”
hypocrite
“”The fact that Elizabeth didn’t go there for some reason speaks to me of work by the Holy Spirit,” Mrs O’Brien said.”
obviously god prefers her to those killed
and you try to turn that into some kind of throwaway it was a condemnation of her absurd and disgusting attitude that her god chose to save her daughter while allowing others to perish,
your comment was just as insulting to those killed
abbot’s sacking tim flannery has come back to bit him on the bum
whereas under the government sponsorship the commission had to remain apolitical, no such condition exists for a council funded by public donations.
the government
t are going to read the read the latest climate institute’s recommendation’s and shut that down as well
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-30/coalition-hunt-climate-change-ippc/4989292
australia your standing in it
C the government are going to read the latest etc, fumble
The world is watching
and on it goes
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-01/queensland-records-hottest-12-months-on-record/4990244
Is Eric Smiff related to another Eric who used to post here? The nonsense from both is similar.
I see what you mean
@ sou from WUWT comments
Eric Worrall says he knows what the real threat is. Maybe he’s looking forward to chasing an antelope when it’s 50º degrees (122º F) in the shade:
September 29, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Its obvious that the real threat is global cooling – shorter growing seasons, unseasonal frosts, hardship and hunger.
Humans have nothing to fear from a warmer climate, we are one of the most hot climate adapted animals on the planet. In anything except the baking tropical savannahs and jungles of our distant ancestors, we have to wear clothes to protect us from the cold.
Why are we so well adapted to the heat? It goes back to how our ancestors used to hunt. We couldn’t run faster than an antelope, but we could run further than an antelope, in hotter weather, until the antelope ran out of steam and simply lay down and died.
For a short while I thought Eric (smif) was trying to play the devil’s advocate but further reading makes me think he’s serious. As for all the bollocks about antelope hunting, he doesn’t seem to realise that idea is mostly untested and really an hypothesis. If we were truly adapted to the heat, we’d probably have two humps and enjoy grazing on thorn bush and twigs. Or, we’d have scales, crawl around on our bellies, possess a rather fetching frilled neck and lay eggs. Maybe I’m an Inuit?
main factor i believe is more the wet bulb temperatures and upper limit for all mammals
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100504155413.htm
yes we are lucky we do not need airconditioning
To live as endurance hunters humans had to evolve nakedness and sweat glands. Sure, we moved beyond endurance hunting and donned clothing, but the physiological constraints imposed on our bodies by heat remain.
Without artificial aids we’re pretty much cactus in many parts of a world that is on average a few degrees warmer, but idiots like Worrall don’t seem to grok that it’s not the few degrees average that affect human physiology, it’s the concomitant extreme peaks of temperature that are the problem.
Quite apart from the overall effect that warming has on the biosphere and climatology in general, of course…
… And it’s those extremes Eric and company continue to ignore or seem not to notice. The fact that new record high peak and average temperatures are being set on a regular basis just doesn’t register with them.