Climate Change in Australia (Part 2)

[Bomber1408]

@Loflyer

For the millionth time, it’s ‘spouting’, not ‘sprouting’.

You are so intelligent, heil Loflyer

[Bomber1408]

@Bacchusfox

@Bomber1408

Its a model based graph

Think it is real data. Temperature records have been kept since 17th century and ice core data tells temperatures before that, back many centuries.

Perhaps you could argue that a temperature rise of less than 1 degrees is small but the trend over the past 200 years is the worry and is arguably influenced by our Industrial Revolution and use of fossil fuel.

There’s a big issue right there…200 years ago we were still exiting the little ice age, so isn’t that convenient for a rise … start where the temperature is low. Classic

Why not start it at say 1000 AD (after all they use proxy data for the hockey stick), a warm period of time. Better still why not start it in the 1920s … another warm period.?

We all know why

[Bomber1408]

@Loflyer

Me, not a great deal. I’ve been vegetarian for 35 years, (meat is problematic the way we do it, have a read), don’t drive unless I have to, all the little things which if most of us did we’d be in slightly better shape, but we all know it’s about major industries and government regulation/willingness. My partner works directly in habitat resuscitation for marine species at imminent risk of extinction, including bird life. What I learn from her in five minutes after one of the long, dangerous practical jobs she goes on is more than heroes like yourself tend to skim from your confirmation bias googleversity sessions.

I also try to learn from what the good faith posters in this forum post, people who work in industry, science, people whose professional insights are repeatedly pizzed on by the likes of Bomber1408 who then tries to pretend he’s being all reasonable and respectful before posting another crackpot video.

What are you doing to validate your alternate views on the science? Why are you here?

Not only a superior intellect, but also heroic and self sacrificing

[billybomber]

I just want to know if I can buy a dodge ram and not feel guilty

[Toast]

you should feel guilty even assuming it was a 0% emission car

[Loflyer]

@Bomber1408

You are so intelligent, heil Loflyer

Happy to improve disadvantaged folks one at a time. Speaking of, the spelling is ‘hail’, not ‘heil’. Unless of course you’re…nah, just a mistake I’m sure.

[Loflyer]

@Bomber1408

Not only a superior intellect, but also heroic and self sacrificing

Well thank you! We don’t look for plaudits, but we don’t say no when they come along. You’ve certainly turned a corner since threatening strangers with violence over philosophical disagreements.

[Bomber1408]

@Benny40

The hockey stick graph is not a model. It is temperature readings.

If my memory serves me correctly, the “temperature readings” were from proxy data like tree rings data back at the turn of the 21st century, I think from 1999 or 2000.

Please note:

1. There were several scientists involved in the “proxy data study”, Michael Mann & a couple of others.
2. Some of the others called out Mann for making the data fit his agenda e.g. for lying, and disassociated themselves from the project. Mann agreed, left them out of his whitepaper & took all the credit / awards
3. The proxy data ignores known warming periods & completely excludes the southern hemisphere … so I guess not really global if you leave out 1/2 the world
4. the tip of the hockey stick is based on forecasting (eg models)

Just like the email exchange between UK based scientists instructing other scientists to alter temperature results … the hockey stick has done huge damage to the credibility of Climate Change & the fact people keep quoting it is perplexing.

[Bomber1408]

@Loflyer

@Bomber1408

You are so intelligent, heil Loflyer

Happy to improve disadvantaged folks one at a time. Speaking of, the spelling is ‘hail’, not ‘heil’. Unless of course you’re…nah, just a mistake I’m sure.

[Clone_Hirdy]

@benfti

Coz woke lefties

So did the not woke Righties cause the ice age?

[Clone_Hirdy]

@billybomber

I just want to know if I can buy a dodge ram and not feel guilty

don’t you think the name of the car is strange?

Dodge - Is to deliberately avoid contact
Ram - Is to deliberately make contact

Make up your mind!

[Toast]

@Bomber1408

Just like the email exchange between UK based scientists instructing other scientists to alter temperature results … the hockey stick has done huge damage to the credibility of Climate Change & the fact people keep quoting it is perplexing.

For the convenience of other readers, this is untrue and the study was exonerated by multiple research and government bodies, finding that while not perfect, there was no fault in scientific practices and that the conclusions were plausible

One of the main critics was also a part-time consultant for minerals companies, and the other an economist.

Next

[andrewb]

Thoughts @Bomber1408 ?

[millagurnzie1]

What about the sources for the temperature readings? The rural/regional, water and satellite data is observed to be more accurate and aligned as they’re not influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect.

[Benny40]

@millagurnzie1

I never said it was a hoax. I just don’t think it’s C02 driving the change. I think it may contribute in some way, but not as much as other factors…like the ■■■■■■■ sun!

That is not the question I asked.

What % probability to you think your take is correct and the scientific consensus is wrong?

I never consider any position I take to be 100% certain. So where do you sit.

Please answer with that %.

[Bacchusfox]

@Bomber1408

There’s a big issue right there…200 years ago we were still exiting the little ice age, so isn’t that convenient for a rise … start where the temperature is low.

Are we looking at the same farking chart ? The temperature from 200 to the end of your "Little Ice Age " was varied fark all. The trend in the last 200 years is the worry, it has gone up relative to the previous 16 centuries a massive amount… As I said only one degC, so I have no idea what it means, but why do you just keep wanting to deny the facts. ?

[wimmera1]

I do find it interesting that some people are happy to cite research of temperatures from millennia ago, but say that research of temperatures from the last two hundred years is a little iffy.

[millagurnzie1]

@Benny40

That is not the question I asked.

You implied that was my position. So I corrected you.

@Benny40

What % probability to you think your take is correct and the scientific consensus is wrong?

I don’t claim to be correct about anything. I think there is just too many variables in the science to be confident with any models/predictions…they definitely are 100% either.

[Humble_Minion]

@millagurnzie1

I don’t claim to be correct about anything. I think there is just too many variables in the science to be confident with any models/predictions…they definitely are 100% either.

That’s the funny thing though, isn’t it?

There has to be a prediction that will, with the benefit of hindsight in 50 years, end up to have been true. There has to be a true answer to the question “how much is human activity affecting the global climate?”

The vast and overwhelming majority of researched and educated scientific opinion, based on models, predictions, measurements of all sorts, and a knowledge of the fundamentals of physics and climateology, says the answer is ‘a lot’.

You opinion is that the answer is ‘not much at all really’, based on … well, whatever you’ve based it on.

You DO have faith in models and predictions. You just don’t have faith in the ones painstakingly calculated by scientists with expertise in the area, instead preferring the ones in your head.

[andrewb]

What’s your number though? It’s a reasonable question. How certain are you that you’re right?