Climate change wankers

Sheesh, some dudes just cant, or will not read. Others it seems think a conversation on climate change can only be had by "climate scientists". Well lets just put that idea to rest. Did climate scientists predict the currently 19 year pause? Did climate scientists predict a reduction in Hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons? Errr.... no they didn't. So what are they "qualified" to talk about when their forecasts have been wrong for the last 20 odd years?

These goons wouldn't last two seconds in real business. No results? The door is over there. Nothing like government (read taxpayer) funded quangos to maintain low standards and endless years of failure.

So the point with regard to decimal places that Nick is trying to make is that the basis for the temperature record is in many places whole numbers. Months and months in any given year of whole numbers over a range of locations across the country. So the person taking the measurement just looked at BB's ever reliable 1714 thermometers and said looks like errr 74, or hmmmm nope 75 degrees and wrote that down.

Now the issue is that those believing in humans driving climate change - the scientists who BB cant speak to, about or even question because as he has written above, they are his superiors intellectually they use temps to 2 decimal places to forecast temperatures. The use of whole numbers therefore corrupts the process. And even a mental pygmy could work that out! Nothing to do with climate science.

The above recording documentation methods can be found in the blink of an eye using google BB. That is, if you have the IQ to use it. Hint: first letter is "G".

Happy

disco if you are not being payed for this crap you should contact the Koch Bros as they pay people to visit forums such as this and push the ideas you are pushing. Give the obvious cognitive disadvantages you suffer, you might benefit from a little extra after the Centrelink benefit. Beyond that your argument is pure assertion. No references, little logic and lots of, really rather pathetic, attempts at abuse.

Last comment from me on this thread I reckon. I always try to keep it civil and explain and clarify things as best I can but it's become very boring, even for me. And I've got no interest left in bothering.

But discostu, tonybarber, nick3 and anyone else, if you're completely convinced that the scientists have got it wrong, have made errors and have manipulated data to tell a story that you think is a lie or even just misrepresents the facts, how about you come up with a better method. Explain to everyone how you would get a picture of the historical climate using a different approach from that which is standard. Go on, I dare you. It's very easy to sit back and criticise but since you're pretty sure what's been done is questionable, do better. Tell us how.

I'm expecting nothing, except maybe something snide, or lame like, you said we don't have the quals to comment. But since i didn't say that and you think you do have the quals to comment and certainly you have the right to debate, maybe you'll surprise me with a sincere effort.

And nick3, I thought you were going to explain that other page to us. Go ahead. I've put in the hard yards at several stages during this long thread, now it's your turn. Explain it to us and explain how you would do better.

As I said, I'm expecting nothing so the bar is pretty low for you to clear.

Benski, yes, likewise. It's frustrating that you fail to read my points or maybe interpret them as you wish to find them. Just look at BB's understanding of the temperature reading. To continue with an arguably condescending angle of 'read the IPCC report' for the general public is the cause for concern. Have a look at what you wrote - certainly an element 'snideness', you have to agree.

Tones always has a retort up his slimy sleeve ......

Hell, now I see why BB went on about "qualified edu-ma-cated" people being the only ones able to converse about climate change. BB, "payed"? Try "paid"! Me paid to write this? wahahahahha The leftwing bogan conspiracy theory! I love it. What's next? The coal companies have put listening devices in our undies? Well if they have, the bloke listening to mine would be deaf!

So using your own standard you are right BB, you are most certainly not qualified to discuss this topic.

Benski, I don't care about another way of measuring the temp. I just want consistency in measurement and I want proof of causation NOT correlation dressed up as fact.

The temp goes up, the temp goes down. But when you tell me that the world has heated by 1.3degrees yet try to hide that whole numbers are part of your data set well that isn't a legit measurement. Noone accepts that in any field of statistical analysis except the climate clowns.

And when the climate clowns said that the world would heat as a result of Co2, gave a number and now their very own ICC report says that Co2 has increased over the last 20 years but temp hasn't well lets get real.

If these clowns are so good, and so accurate, go put a bet on what they say the temp will be 5 years from now.

If you really want a giggle look up the alleged movement of heat from the ocean in the western pacific magically negotiating its way around islands undetected to now be parked by East Timor and northern Australia. Apparently the heat just wanted a summer holiday! Fiction!

Not satisfied with being an ignorant prat, nick is going for ignorant, pedantic prat. And just out of curiosity who is "Noone" in your nonsensical sentence? Oh no, the great grammarian meant no-one! Stones? Glasshouses? Ring any bells there nick?

Nick3 has had at least the courage of his convictions to list where he gets some of his information from. Amongst his bluster he lists Principa Scientific as a source of information, which lists non luminaries such as Lord Monckton among its supporters. I'd suggest that anyone who wants to read their position have a look at it and make up your own mind. But when it comes to bluster, its discostu who takes the cake. I've tried to get him (because I really would like to look at his sources) to let us know where he is getting his info from. For all I know, he might be making it all up.

Hey Murphy, check out p. 15 of this thread. I had a look at Nick3's 'sources' back then. What a friggin' shit-show.

This thread really is 'pigeon chess' madness.

Murphy's law eh mate? tehehehehhee

Murphy, no matter what the subject, when you use a model to predict a result, but the result doesn't occur then clearly you don't know what the feck you are doing. I don't care if its climate change, underpants change, or bumwiping.

Reaching this conclusion does not require a degree in climate science. If you lack common sense, that's your problem.

Here are some gems for you to ponder:
In 1940, Greenland was approaching a catastrophe.

The Courier-Mail Monday 6 May 1940

By far the largest number of local glaciers in north-east Greenland had receded very greatly during recent decades, and it would not be exaggerating to say that these glaciers were nearing a catastrophe.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/
In 1922, Arctic melt had made it unrecognizable

Norwegian report from 1923

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/

Arctic melt 1922:

National library of Australia: http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/23668813?searchTerm=%22climate...

In 1911, glaciers were disappearing ( same source)
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/72280521

Muir glacier in Vancouver retreats at 8 feet per day. When? 1794-1879

http://www.glacierbay.org/glaciers.html

Don't tell me. Man made global warming caused by the new discovery of BBQ prawns? Knock yourself out with your explanation.

For the love of Krist! What's your fucked-up source that kicked off this whole shit-show? On pg. 15 I checked out who and what they are.

Fark. Old newspapers, corporate-funded astro-turfers, assorted nuts. BEAM ME UP. Bye bye.

Hey Turks, remember the bum vomit nick3 was spraying everywhere about working so hard for his family and how us welfare cheats ought to get a job. Sort of yokel that would be arming himself in the woods just in case Trump doesn't get up. Its all a conspiracy to nicko

Dear nick,
Thanks for the hours of idle amusement your musings have brought us but I feel I should point out that homophobic rants are not acceptable here, or anywhere else really except perhaps your circle of mates. I think you are sailing very close to the edge of oblivion with the last comment. So, just in case, goodbye and good luck....wherever you are, you will need it.

ouch nick3 that really hurt ....... now back to your rock yokel

Discostu, I'm not sure why your reply is so narky. I've been watching this thread for a while and noticed you had made a number of claims that I wanted to check out. Its my opinion that claims made by nick3 that he backs up with a link to Principia Scientific, can be discounted as having no scientific cred. I've looked through most of your links thank you, but not box and dice of all the NOAA info. Is this the sole source of your opinions? I don't take any notice of comments on this forum that aren't backed up with a credible source...a polite answer would be nice.

BB : How is that homophobic ?

He just implied that they were rooting ?

You people should really print a tome listing your acceptable standards for modern society.

Kind of like an Emily Post for the modern age.

If you use homosexuality as an insult that is textbook homophobia. Where have you been for the last several decades?

How was homosexuality used as an insult ?

He stated they were having sex, that their opinions were so aligned they must be lovers.

Nothing homophobic about that.

And where have I been for decades ?

Growing up next to my sole sibling , who is a homosexual male.

Who I showed your post to this afternoon and the consensus between us was that you should shut your virtue signaling lips and allow other people to decide if they are offended or not on matters that concern them and not yourself .

So pull your head in you sanctimonious fool.

wondering what similar comment nick3 could dream up in his single celled brain box using the Turks and Blowin's names!

Yeh right Blowin' the purpose of the post was crystal clear and if you and your brother did not interpret it that way, that is your error.

BB' ..... i thought you valued the opinions of experts in their field more highly than the layman ?

Which makes me wonder how you would presume to be more acutely aware of whether a statement was offensive to homosexuals than a man who'd been a homosexual for over four decades .

Fellas, whether someone takes offence is one thing, but Nick3's comment was straight up homophobic in that it cast "two guys rooting" in the pejorative.

Try and stay out of the gutter, Nick3.

Strewff, look at all the leftwing PC bleating HRC employees with nout else to do. Now all portending to be the arbiters of what is right and wrong about someone's words???
Nick can say what he likes. What shit dribbling moron takes offence at something as innocuous as what he wrote? BB you are one preposterous individual. What is wrong with you dudes?

"Nick can say what he likes."

No mate, he can't. I'll let any argument continue when the rhetoric remains within the bounds of decency. Hey, I'll even let it bleed over the edge when the situation calls for it. But laissez faire abuse..? Racism? Homophobic slurs? Sorry, go yell it in Martin Place and see how far you get.

Same rules apply here.

Nah Nick, I don't indulge trolls.

It was explained in my second last post. If you can't follow that then I'd suggest just steering clear of any controversy.

Ha ha! What fresh lunacy is this?

Being accused of being a 'homophobe' myself on these threads (by InSypo...with no real evidential back-up BTW), I am offended that I am now apparently in the same gang as Nick3!

(Cue this:

Enough! This has got to stop! Who's thinking of the children?

Erm, that didn't come out right...

My name is TalkingTurkey and I am a stultophobe.

Yeah nick, get out of the gutter, the gutter objects to your type giving it a bad name .....

the sort of beastilality that Berndardi is warning us all about if SSM gets up......

or maybe this ......

The left shrieks loud but are they are NOT a majority. Once Trumpy gets in, the rules will change and all the bleeding heart socialist rubbish will squeal for real.

I always think of these leftwing wimps as the wimps you saw at high school or beat the hell out of when they opened their gobs.

Stu lets use the same argument nick put forward - but instead of two blokes its now a chick and a bloke. So what is it now mate? Sexism or some other tosh?

Sheesh. And Nick is quite right. That mug BB called me a racist for stating facts on Aboriginals. He is a classic leftwing fool. No argument, or rebuttal, but instead an attempt to impugn the character of others.

Cheers.

"Stu lets use the same argument nick put forward - but instead of two blokes its now a chick and a bloke. So what is it now mate? Sexism or some other tosh?"

No, it simply wouldn't get used. It was an insult about being gay, nothing less.

I mean, if you can't understand that what else can't you understand..?

Serious question.

I didn't say you're a homophobe turkeyman, said you sounded a bit..

to the example above, one could say

....Katherine murphy is so far up Malcolm turnball's arse I cannot take her seriously anymore.....

would that be homophobic? similar context

I wonder what milo would say?

"The left shrieks loud but are they are NOT a majority. Once Trumpy gets in, the rules will change and all the bleeding heart socialist rubbish will squeal for real.

I always think of these leftwing wimps as the wimps you saw at high school or beat the hell out of when they opened their gobs."

Feelin' kinda Trumpy (with apologies to Mt Gambier's finest, Dave Graney)?

Interesting ain't it, InSypo, that the (Oz) Guardian is decried as lefty, socialist, commie etc etc etc, yet if anyone reads the political editor Katherine Murphy's work, her Turnbull bias is embarrassingly obvious. The multitude of excuses! The breathless wait for the 'real' Malcolm to emerge!

It's been said before, but in Australia, there is no mainstream left media. It should be referred to as 'left of...' media. It's an accurate term across the board. Across all English-speaking Western democracies too, I wager.

So the Corbyn-bashing UK Guardian and Sanders-ignoring US Guardian are accurately 'left of...' say, the Daily Mail or Fox News. BUT they are not '...of the left'!

Remember this from the last Federal election (the Oz Guardian were in the 'neither' camp)?

Get it? Got it? Good!

Tween, where are you mate.

I owe you an apology.

You haven't seen the film have you, Nick Nick Nick?

What about this one?

nick if you can't understand a concept as straightforward as homophobia no wonder you have trouble with climate change.