It’s called a job and 3 kids. However your self importance to suggest that I’ve stayed away because of one of your repetitive and blinkered posts is admirable.
As mentioned it’s a spike as there has been many times before. That is a fact. I’m certainly not going to try and respond to the chorus of vocal lefties every time there is a post they don’t like.
Many times hey?
How many?
At what point(s) in history has the co2 in the atmosphere been over 400 parts per million?
More importantly was it a climate where human life could have been sustainable?
And btw If blinkered means being compelled to accept scientific evidence, data and facts to form my view vs ignorant politically driven diversion then I’m the most blinkered person alive.
It occurs to me that you are coming from even further back than TripEss. At least he/she accepts the very basic science that CO2 traps heat, therefore emissions on a sufficient scale will impact climate. For some reason he/she is just unable to take the next step on the cause-effect continuum. You, on the other hand, are an absolute denier. And your one and only ‘argument’ - that climate change is a natural phenomenon (duh), therefore cannot be impacted by human activity - is an assertion based on weak logic and no evidence.
Not true, unfortunately.
CBA has been funding them in secret deals.
“A News.com.au report reveals that the Commonwealth Bank facilitated Adani’s water licence payment to the Queensland Government.1
You know, the completely outrageous licence that allows Adani to draw unlimited litres of water from the Great Artesian Basin? Yes, that one.2
What makes this all the more galling is that Commbank walked away from their Carmichael mine advisory role almost two years ago, sparing them the negative publicity that comes with this disastrous hole in the ground.3”
Dyslexia is rampant in this thread from the warmists. Perhaps it’s sand in the eyes.
No, I’m familiar enough with your basic assertion that climate change is a natural phenomenon, therefore is not affected by ff emissions (I won’t call it an argument). After all, these are your words:
There are different views about climate change. Mine is that coal does not impact climate change at all.
Coal is not impacting climate change.
The ice has melted before. It’s also frozen again and we have had things called “ice ages” before. The other relevant point is that this occurred before the nasty people started burning their fossil fuels.
Climate change has been occurring since the beginning of time. Is it irreversible? It has always changed and will continue to do so with or without people releasing evil carbon. Is it reversible? Probably not. It’s different and always changing.
Glad someone with a level head is in power in the US. Let’s hope the same happens in Australia. “EPA head Scott Pruitt denies that carbon dioxide causes global warming”
thanks HM. an interesting read.
Seems a bit like having a buck each way. Pump up the tiers just in case. If the dirty bastards really are doing this it’s not going to make a difference in getting it up in terms of finance from outside which is what’s required for any legit project at this scale.
You aren’t. I know your angles. Pretending to care about poor people in the name of multinational polluters. Good luck with that.
The fukquittery is strong in this one …
2 Likes
A question re: rising sea levels. It is basic, I mean, really basic, science that water expands when it freezes and, obviously, conversely ice contracts when it melts. How then can it be claimed that global warming/climate change/melting icecaps will cause sea levels to rise?
Because water expands when heated. Also, you’ve got melting glacial ice going into the oceans.
I think he was having a lend…, at least i hope he was.
1 Like
A huge amount of ice is on land, in Antarctica & Greenland in particular. If that ice melts, it becomes water and runs down to the sea where it raises sea levels.
2 Likes
The “basic science” wasn’t very well thought out.
1 Like
And that children is how you make Global Warming or AGW or as it became known after 1999 when the warming stopped, Climate Change then Catastrophic Climate Change followed by Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change.
The latter only applies to hurricanes, blizzards, any storm stronger than a strong wind. I.e. Super Storm Sandy.
Probably get accused of playing the man but this is the bio of the guy who wrote that blog.
I really like this,
I have degrees in Geology and Electrical Engineering, and worked on the design team of many of the world’s most complex designs, including some which likely power your PC or Mac. I have worked as a contract software developer on climate and weather models for the US government.
That’s written like a Nigerian scam. " I am a very important person with many contacts in the central bank" i.e. I think he’s completely full of ■■■■.
Oh he’s a contractor! Well he’s unlikely to overstate his involvement in any of his previous projects then isn’t he.
I love it how you post a link to an article shrieking ‘■■■ nasa changed the data!!!’ that makes not even the remotest attempt to investigate what they did or why they did it, and that just flat-out assumes nasa is perpetrating deliberate fraud. Is this what constitutes ‘science’ or ‘analysis’ among AGW deniers now? No research of their own, no theories of their own, producing nothing of value, just scraping NASAs graphics off NASAs website and cobbling together out of context outrage about utterly ■■■■■■■ nothing? The whole phenomenon is one of the most worthless ends to which intellectual effort has been put in the modern era, even including the reality TV industry.
Quick answer - there are more satellites now than there were in 2000 so we have more data which gives us a better picture of what’s really happening. There are more weather stations now, especially in polar regions which were very poorly tracked back then and which have been subject to some of the severest warming (as a cursory glance at the FRIGGING VANISHING ARCTIC ICEPACK would clearly show), which also gives us more data which gives us a better picture of what’s really happening. And our ability to interpret satellite data has improved since 2000 as well - the article here describes how there were significant errors detected in 2003 and 2005 about how satellite data was interpreted which have since been corrected.
(And before someone gibbers about how new satellites & weather stations aren’t able to measure historic temperatures, yes, that’s why we have mathematical tools like interpolation, and other basic fucking statistical methods that have probably been around for over a century and have been used routinely and uncontroversially in every field of human endeavour ever since but which will no doubt be painted as damning evidence of a vast sinister conspiracy by NASA/IPCC/Tim Flannery/Steve Irwin’s Zombie/George Soros/Al Gore/the Gnomes of Zurich/the Knights Templar/the International Jewish Conspiracy/CSIRO/inner city latte sippers/ABC the fucking second they’re applied to climate)
5 Likes
Also, inconsistent swear filter is inconsistent…
2 Likes