Greens blame Cyclone Yasi on "climate change"

Bunch of cynical ecotards

Does anyone really give a flying f**k what the Greens think any more? Why yes, the ABC does, which reports their every petulant outburst with wholly undue reverence. It was only a matter of time before the eco-totalitarians in the Greens, desperate to advance their Marxist agenda by any means possible, blamed the (yet to arrive) Cyclone Yasi on climate change. Tell me Senator Milne, where is your evidence for that ludicrous statement? Oh, yeah, I remember, we don’t need evidence, do we, just desperate appeals to ignorance and emotion.

I run these stories to demonstrate to my readers how irrelevant the Greens are in modern politics. I know it’s painful, but it has to be done.

The Australian Greens say Tropical Cyclone Yasi is a “tragedy of climate change”.

The party was heavily criticised after it linked the Queensland floods to climate change and blamed coal miners.

Greens deputy leader Christine Milne says the cyclone is another example of why it is important to cut carbon pollution.

“This is a tragedy, but it is a tragedy of climate change,” she said.

“The scientists have been saying that we are going to experience more extreme weather events, that their intensity is going to increase, their frequency.” (source)

To think that people have been stupid enough to vote these idiots into the balance of power in the Senate beggars belief.

Comments

  1. The Loaded Dog says:

    I just read that little beauty myself on ABC and was going to flick you the link.

    Just like true snakes in the grass here are the filthy greens trying to score political points for their religious cause BEFORE this possibly catastrophic event even hits having learned from the huge criticism leveled at Brown and his green turds when they attempted to score points AFTER the Qld flooding.

    And the bloody ABC, as usual, reports anything these mongrels say.

    I note the following is slipped in for the utterly gullible with not even the slightest clarification from the USELESS ABC.

    “The scientists have been saying that we are going to experience more extreme weather events, that their intensity is going to increase, their frequency.”

    Oh the “scientists” say – so there is NO question. Talk about argument by authority.

    Oh man. This is so infuriating. I need a drink….

    • OT I learnt last night where ‘the loaded dog’ comes from. Not you, the saying 🙂

    • Here we go again like any politician using an event to score points, may be the ice age was created because there was no gas emitions at all, that’s why god put the human been on the earth uh? o may be we can and make the chinese the indians and the americans to pay for emisions tax? but noooo we are the only ones to pay emisions tax!! and shoot our own foot because everything we export is more expensive and more hard to compete with those countrys that haven’t got any tax at all on emisions.
      That’s ok tell the hipocrites to don’t use anything at all that comes from the fossil fuels at all, ill bet you they can’t live without any product dirived from fossil fuels.

      • Seems pretty obvious that the continuous rise in sea temperatures off Australia over the last century ( temps are now 0.7C warmer than in 1920) with a strong La Nina event on top of that would lead to a stronger than ever cyclone.
        Pretty much what climate scientists have been warning us about for years now.
        The reactionary frothing at the mouth from some of the so-called “sceptics” in here is a sure sign that they are furious at being proved wrong yet again.
        Stand by for far more record-smashing extreme weather events in the coming years. You have been warned.

        • >far more record-smashing extreme weather events

          Err, but we haven’t had one yet?

          Cyclone Yasi wasn’t the biggest.
          The floods weren’t the biggest, and nor was the rainfall.
          The drought wasn’t the longest or the driest.
          The bushfires weren’t the worst.

          By all means join a doomsday cult and chant about the end of the world, just excuse the rest of us for sniggering behind your back at your gullibility and ignorance of history.

    • Conceivably, many viewers will recognise that news item as the pits when they realise that the ABC had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find public faces willing to express it.

  2. Paul Bennett says:

    [off topic – I have sent you a private email about the issue you raise]

  3. Just watched ABC News 24. If, as I suspect, it is a repeat of 7pm News on ABC1, the cretinous Milne baloney was pulled. I could be wrong, but I hope not.

  4. Sigh. Someone kindly tell me how Cyclone Tracy was linked to co2 emissions? Was 1974 the last big La Nina event, or am I mistaken?

    I note they’ve got in early this time – which shows they learnt from last time.

    Seems the intelligent people of this world are going to have to point out that Gore’s Katrina link has been thoroughly debunked, and so shall Yasi.

    Cyclones happen. The last couple of years since Larry have actually been pretty good for QLD.

    Milne and Brown need to start getting publicly ridiculed for these utterances. I had to explain to someone who only takes a passing interest in the news last week how the floods weren’t really caused by global warming.

    • I’d be wholly unsurprised if the Greens attempted to attribute AGW to Cyclone Tracy. I defer again to Einstein re: human stupidity being infinite.It certainly is in the Greens.

  5. Simon I don’t know why we keep calling them greens when all they are are Marxists.They want a planed economy where they control every thing and we know how well planed economies work.
    Think it is time for Tony to drag out the reds under I mean in the bed.
    I bet good old Christine is home tonight just preying to Gaia to be as bad as possible.
    Nice people

  6. Baa Humbug says:

    I’m with others on this. it infuriates me to the point where i actually hate these people. I don’t usually hate.

    Will you kind people elect me as benevolent dictator for a day? The only thing I’ll decree is that all these greens, ecozealots, green activists and university professors are tar n feathered and shipped out to the Antarctic permanently. let ’em eat penguin.

  7. Following your report, Bolta describes the Greens as the “first scoundrel” to squawk the ‘“global-warming-caused-Cyclone-Yasi” meme’. That may be an understatement on his part considering that, in re-opening his blog to comments, he intends to be “intolerant of rudeness of any kind” !

    As Bolta reports, even the (alarmist) Bureau of Meteorology gives no more than an objective analysis of Queensland’s cyclone history during these months. For example, there have been “207 known impacts from tropical cyclones along the east coast since 1858”, “with almost twice as many impacts during La Niña than during El Niño”.

    To be sure, Yasi is a tragedy in the making. But the reality is that, for Queenslanders, it is just another day at the office.

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      in re-opening his blog to comments, he intends to be “intolerant of rudeness of any kind” !

      Darn it. I have some really rude and intolerant things to say about the filthy greens…

    • nathorange says:

      The reason the Bureau did not speak about Yasi in terms of climate change is because they are not climatologists. They are meteorologists who study THE WEATHER. Climate and weather are not the same thing. Please educate yourself.

  8. The last quote from the Green Party seems fair: “The scientists have been saying that we are going to experience more extreme weather events, that their intensity is going to increase, their frequency.” Asserting this event is definitely linked to climate change is too strong, but the possibility that it is should be dismissed.

    • Mike – all very well but not based in fact. The long term trend in Tropical Cyclone activity is down, not up. If frequency and intensity were increasing, then, perhaps, you could say it might be related to warming temperatures (but you stll couldn’t link to c02). But they aren’t. And the studies prove it. While Anna Bligh mightn’t have seen one before, QLD certainly has.

      see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/abs/413508a0.html

  9. nathorange says:

    I can’t believe how many science deniers wriggle around like writhing grubs on this blog! To deny climate change is to deny science. Your collective ignorance could be likened to that of the ‘flat earth’ believers of the middle ages.

    Thank god for the greens. Thank god for a truly rational voice in this whole drama.

    (Editor’s note: I normally don’t publish this kind of rant, but it was just too good to ignore!)

    • Thanks Ed. Enjoyed that.

      • The Loaded Dog says:

        Wasn’t that just so special?……yeah…..thanks Ed……..I enjoyed that too.

      • Ed – I’d say you’ve made it onto a green party mailing list or a deniers alert. WOuld be interesting to check the referral logs for this post and see where the attention is originating from. Probably some frothing post at the Drum, titled ‘look at all these deniers denying stuff’ – go and tell them there is a consensus and we’ve decided it all for them, Gaia Dam it!

    • I can’t believe how many science ignorers fly like moths to a flame towards the Green party. To embrace one trace gas as the determinant of all global weather is to ignore science, the scientific method and evidence based theories. Your belief in consensus science and models over evidence could be likened to that of the ‘luminiferous ether’ believes of the 19th century.

      Thank god for rational scientists and independent blogs. Thank god the truth can’t be buried under government propaganda in this godforsaken myth that has been going for 30 years.

      (writers note : I love to see when a green acolyte strays outside of their groupthink echo-chamber and strikes opposition to their belief system. It really spins their head around)

      • nathorange says:

        To accept that climate change is actually happening and that it is largely human induced does not require a leap of faith. It is not a “belief”, as you call it @brc. The phenomenon of climate change is not something people choose to “believe” in. There is no “choice”. Just as there is no choice with gravity. Gravity just is. Judging the best scientific evidence available, climate change IS. To be an active climate change denier is equivalent to being an active gravity denier and therefore a denier of reality.

        Now, what is entirely meddlesome and distinctly anti-science is the way in which the whole climate issue has been hijacked and turned into a so-called “debate”. If there is to be a debate, leave it to the scientists who are actually researching the data, and leave them to debate it the way they always have: in peer reviewed scientific journals.

        Exaggerated opinions prove your ideological leanings, but they have no place in science. Listening to our scientists should take top priority. We should stop turning climate change into an ideological football with teams “for” and “against”. This is spectacularly anti-science and irrational.

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          Gravity just is. Judging the best scientific evidence available, climate change IS.

          And verily I say unto you Al Gore spoke and uttered “Climate Change is so” – and lo…it was so…

          You truly are a joke nathorange, no one here denies Climate Change, just that humans are catastrophically affecting it. You fools continue to aimlessly wander around in the intellectual wastelands desperately trying to find something concrete to support your rantings.

          Do us all a favour while you’re there will you and please stop trying to legitimise your crazy religious belief system by continuing to refer to it as “science.” You are insulting the real scientists out there.

        • nathorange says:

          Your ignorance of the history of climate science is breathtaking. Al Gore invented climate change, eh? The shallowness of that statement speaks for itself!

          So the changes that the Earth is currently experiencing in its climate is not due to anthropogenic causes? What is it, then, that is the cause? Please enlighten us “crazy religious believers” who are so ignorant of reality.

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          Your ignorance of the history of climate science is breathtaking.Al Gore invented climate change, eh? The shallowness of that statement speaks for itself!

          Yes, and your ignorance in failing to identify a statement uttered in jest is also breathtaking.

        • So many new points raised, so many things that need clarifying, correcting, shooting down. But I’ll not play that game, I’ll just repost some things which you may or may not want to respond directly to. Or you can throw up another couple of straw men, your choice.

          Here’s what I said:
          ‘Your belief in consensus science and models over evidence could be likened to that of the ‘luminiferous ether’ believes of the 19th century.’
          Here’s what you said:
          “To accept that climate change is actually happening and that it is largely human induced does not require a leap of faith. It is not a “belief”, as you call it @brc.”

          In my tongue-in-cheek comment, I poked fun at the conflation of belief in consensus as a proof of a scientific theory. Your knowledge of scientific history must be patchy to not understand my inclusion of ether theory.

          However, your response is though you never read it at all, which is fine, I’ve gotten very used to that.

          And then we have a call to allow scientists debate the problem in scientific journals. Well, at least that’s progress. Because we were told the debate was over and the science was settled. It’s a relief to know that scientist are actually allowed to disagree again.

          Science is not a position, a party or an organisation, it’s a process. The only way you can be anti-science is if you refuse to use the scientific method and start wandering away from providing falsifiable theories and wanting to do things like reverse the null hypothesis and replace measurements with modelling. And I wonder which side of the ‘for and against’ teams are doing that?

    • pete the Geostratusr says:

      Actually, good science involves testing and looking for flaws in theories, people who question AGW or evolution or whatever theory you care to mention, in a rational manner are infact, conducting good science.

      Your rational that questioning a theory is “science denying” smacks more of flat earthisim, an unshakeable dogmatic belief in your own world view.

      and as a matter of fact, I am a scientist and I seriously doubt that there is sugh a thing as AGW.

      • nathorange says:

        @pete the Geostratusr. Why do you so seriously doubt the evidence? Are you claiming that 99% of our climate systems scientists have got it wrong? Being a scientist yourself, you should surely know, as a rule, how moderate and restrained research scientists are in drawing conclusions. The fact that such an emphatic conclusion has been drawn about climate change based on such a myriad of evidence, you must agree, is highly compelling.

        PS. What kind of scientist are you exactly?

        • pete the Geostratusr says:

          Sigh…
          re-read my post, where did I say that I doubted climate change?

        • 99% of the climate systems scientists? Wow, what a scientific sounding, accurate number. It’s so accurate it almost sounds made-up. Did you know that 56.45725% of statistics are made up on the spot?

          Here’s a question for you : how many scientists does it take to prove a theory wrong? Answers in the comments, please. How many scientists did it take to prove the stress theory of stomach ulcers incorrect?

          Consensus is the refuge of a theory without a proof, or indeed a way of being falsified. It’s safety in numbers for people without an actual proof.

          It doesn’t matter how many people agree with a position. What matters is if the position is able to be proven true or false, through evidence. Everything else is just bun-throwing at the edges of the real conversation.

          That’s why you and your buddies at ‘denier alerts’ always trot out the ‘99%’ number (or 95%, or 90%, or whatever pops into the commenters head), as if it means anything. Consensus is an artefact of a theorys popularity, not a prediction of its basis in fact.

          At least you tried the consensus line and stayed well away from ‘big oil’ or trying to smear scientist who don’t agree with your position, instead of answering their objections.

          I bet you’d like to open up our heads and rewire them the right way, wouldn’t you? It must be very frustrating to have progress stalled when people stop and say ‘prove it’.

        • nathorange says:

          I agree with you. Of course one scientific theory can replace another. The Helicobacter case is a great example of that.

          It’s your perception of peer review that is very strange. Consensus is not a dirty word. Why you believe this to be true I can only assume is because it conveniently fits your ideology. Consensus is one of the strengths of the scientific process. It promotes rigorous scrutiny and ensures science’s integrity. It prevents unscientific practices and ensures sound experiment design. Scientists who study Climate Systems, just like their colleagues in the life sciences and the material sciences, follow the same peer review process. There’s not one rule for climate scientists and another for other scientific fields. All scientists follow the same process. Why focus so exclusively on climate science if it’s the entire scientific process that you believe is so flawed? Funny, I don’t see any blogs out there criticising the data and conclusions about quantum theory or plate tectonics.

          If you have issues with the scientific process per se, voice them as loudly as you like. (I have my own reservations about it myself (although not for the same reasons as you)). But if you do have criticisms about science, aim them towards science in general instead of climate science in particular. To do otherwise is disingenuous.

          To everyone else on this blog: It might pay to read some actual peer reviewed journal articles some day to obtain some information from actual scientific sources. The last time I checked, newspaper articles are not written by scientists.

        • Consensus has nothing to do with peer review. Peer review is the process of ensuring flawed studies don’t get published. It fails regularly and is not infallible.

          Consensus is just an agreement amongst practitioners that a particularly theory is the best explanation.

          Consensus is not proof of the validity of a theory, just a current marker of its popularity.

          Helicobacter is an example where the consensus was dead wrong, and had been for a long time.

          Plate Tectonics is another – this theory was held in ridicule for a long time (continents floating around!?, you must be daft!) before the evidence was found to be correct.

          These examples both show that a consensus can be wrong no matter how much support it has, and a consensus shouldn’t be relied upon for anything that is lacking in physical evidence.

          Consensus is in artefact, not cause or proof. My problem with climate science ‘consensus’ is both that (a) models, not evidence are used to prove the theory and (b) consensus is the reason we’re all told to shut up and obey.

        • nathorange says:

          @brc, you said: “My problem with climate science ‘consensus’ is both that (a) models, not evidence are used to prove the theory and (b) consensus is the reason we’re all told to shut up and obey.”

          Concerning your problem (a): Using models in science is not some shady practice, as you and your cohorts seem to believe. Empirical data is obtained from the field and fed into computer models. The projections from these models don’t just arrive out of thin air. They are extrapolations and projections using ACTUAL DATA. When new data is obtained, the projections are updated. You obviously have no idea how the process works.

          Scientists from all fields use computer modelling. It is a very useful tool. Is the chemist who uses computer modelling to predict the stability of molecules, or the ecologist who uses computer modelling to predict the population dynamics of an endangered species, or a microbiologist who uses computer modelling to predict microbial behaviour in foods, are all these scientists not practicing “science” properly because they use computer modelling? You’ve got to be kidding!!!

          Concerning your problem (b): Nowhere have I ever heard a climate scientist tell people to shut up and obey. Scientists are by and large a highly rational, methodical and prudent group of people. They put forward their data and analyses and are judged on the merit of their evidence. If there ARE people who are telling you to shut up and obey, ask yourself whether these people are actually climate scientists. I think you’ll find they are non-scientists. So it’s not consensus that is the issue at all, it’s listening to non-scientists that is the issue.

  10. Thank you nathorange! To deny climate change is to deny suitable implentations from being put in place should another disaster occur. Climate change has already started to effect our weather and climate systems.
    It can also be linked to Cyclone Yasi, as cyclones feed off warm waters. So as ocean temperatures increase, the severity and longevity of cyclones and tropical storms will naturally increase.

    http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/media/newsletter/winter09/strongcyclones.pdf

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      Just to clarify, I don’t argue with religious fanatics, I find it a waste of valuable time, but thank you for your concern in any case El.

      So I guess the “end is nigh” too is it?….and we should “repent”?

      Hmmm, should we do that repenting now….or is there still time to do it later?

      • I don’t argue with religious fanatics

        Indeed, it’s a waste of breath, TLD. When “science” to them means, not empirical evidence demanded by the Scientific Method, but computer generated projections tailored to conform to dogma, debate is painfully pointless.

        There’s a real problem, however, when too many of them hold the purse strings and infest the corridors of power intoning sound grabs of the ignorant like “my government will put a price on carbon”. Such arrogant knuckleheads put themselves above and beyond debate.

        • nathorange says:

          @Graham, do you even know how the process of computer modelling works? It sounds to me like you are just regurgitating old allegations from people like Delingpole who know nothing about research science whatsoever.

          Empirical data is obtained from the field and fed into computer models. The projections from these models don’t just arrive out of thin air. They are extrapolations and projections using ACTUAL DATA. When new data is obtained, the projections are updated. You obviously have no idea how the process works.

          Scientists from all fields use computer modelling. It is a very useful tool. Is the chemist who uses computer modelling to predict the stability of molecules, or the ecologist who uses computer modelling to predict the population dynamics of an endangered species, or a microbiologist who uses computer modelling to predict microbial behaviour in foods, are all these scientists not practicing “science” properly because they use computer modelling? You’ve got to be kidding!!!

    • Yawn. So all of the bigger cyclones in the past that made landfall in Queensland, were they caused by co2 emissions as well?

      This has been so thoroughly debunked, so many times since Hurricane Katrina was hoisted as the battle colors for Al Gore’s brigade, I’m surprised anyone sticks their head up and tries it on anymore.

      Just for your information – increased cyclone activity in the Coral sea correlates with warmer SST, as a result of La Nina. And nothing to do with how many people leave their television on standby. I’d provide links but 2 seconds of Googling will provide so many it’s not worth bothering. Even the BOM site will show that TC activity is well within historic variability. ‘Biggest cyclone ever’ sells a lot of newspapers, though, and is ever so useful for making a politician look grave and sincere.

      I’m curious though, what “suitable implentations from being put in place” are going to stop North Queensland from getting hit by cyclones? I’m sure a lot of people would like to know how you can solve that little conundrum.

    • nathorange says:

      There was no “reply” button beneath @brc’s last post, so i have written my reply here.

      Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse explains consensus. To quote him directly:
      “Consensus is often viewed as a dirty word. But consensus is actually the position of the experts AT THE TIME. And if it’s working well, it doesn’t always work well, but if it’s working well, [the consensus position holds]. You make your reputation in science by actually overturning [the consensus position], so there is a lot of pressure to do it. But if, over the years, the consensus doesn’t move, you have to ask is the evidence and argument against the consensus good enough?”

      He goes on further to give a great analogy to highlight the absurdity of the type of attack on consensus that you are pushing, @brc:
      “Say you had cancer, and you went to be treated. There would be a consensual position on your treatment. And it is very likely that you would follow that consensual treatment because you would trust the clinical scientist there…Now you could say, “well, I’ve done my own research into it and I disagree with that consensual position”, but that would be a very unusual position for you to take. I think sometimes the consensual position can be criticised when in fact it is most likely to be the correct position”

      So, let’s say you did have cancer and went to an oncologist to be treated, @brc. Are you saying that you would ignore the treatment recommendation of your doctor simply because it was the consensus position?

      Obviously you are observant enough to recognise that scientific consensus positions, once they are established, are not completely immovable. Your numerous examples about the cause of ulcers etc. definitely shows that. And I am not saying anything contrary to that obvious fact. But when the evidence points towards a conclusion that other evidence from other scientists also supports, and which is the best explanation of the data AT THE TIME, why shoot it down? Why not trust it until other data proves otherwise.

      Obviously more data (whether supportive of or contrary to) the consensus position will continually be acquired over time, and the consensus position may very well be altered or changed. But assessing the knowledge and the data we have RIGHT NOW, human induced climate change is the best explanation we have. Please show me convincing evidence that comes to the opposite conclusion and I will gladly eat my hat.

      • That’s the same Paul Nurse who just stitched up Delingpole, of course… I had to laugh at the way you tossed in “Nobel Prize winner” casually, like Al Gore or Rajendra Pachauri perhaps… 😉

        I’m afraid the tired old cancer analogy is nonsensical (and far too overused – Ian Lowe used it on ABC Radio Sydney yesterday and it doesn’t wash). This isn’t a case of learned doctors on the one hand vs. a rag-bag of charlatan quacks on the other, as such a careless analogy suggests, this is equally learned and respected scientists on both sides of the argument, who disagree honestly and genuinely on the magnitude and severity of man’s effect on climate. Also, remedies for cancer have had empirical testing and evaluation – there is no such similar regime for testing the climate system in a laboratory.

        Furthermore it isn’t about number counting. You cannot say that the consensus has more scientists supporting it therefore it must be correct. There is a significant minority (always underquoted in the media of course) that dissent, and my view is that both sides of the debate should acknowledge the areas of uncertainty in climate research (although once again, it is the sceptics who tend to be more willing to do so…)

        • nathorange says:

          Just say you are a scientist actively researching climate systems and your data and conclusions don’t match the dominant position. I am not saying that you are wrong at all if this happens. Rigorous scrutiny should be encouraged in science and for all intents and purposes it is. You make a name for yourself in the scientific community, in fact, if you are able to prove that your own theory is a better explanation than the dominant position.

          The issue is when NON-SCIENTISTS (such as Delingpole for example, who by the way is a journalist) exaggerate their ideological (yes, ideological, not scientific) arguments and pretend to know what they are talking about when they haven’t read a single scientific paper. And then they inflame the issue by misrepresenting the science and throwing unreasonably accusatory and subjective language around in their headlines. Don’t get me wrong, the often too zealous and passionate green left do exactly the same thing by colouring their own language with apocalyptic force. They both mischaracterise the issue and suddenly we are stuck with this diametric polarity of OPINION that has nothing to do with the science at all.

          Let the scientists do their science. And let us form opinions based on the science.

          Some dissenting scientists (Plimer is a good example) have been ridiculed because their opinions lack evidence, or they misrepresent data, or they make unannotated unreferenced statements. Like I have said in previous posts, please present to me any scientific literature that emphatically proves climate change wrong and I will acquiesce.

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          nathorange dribbles another standard warmist chestnut :-

          “Like I have said in previous posts, please present to me any scientific literature that emphatically proves climate change wrong and I will acquiesce.”

          Here’s a standard (and quite reasonable) response.

          Your ilk are the ones trying to “save the world” here by the creation of a world wide taxing system amounting to TRILLIONS or dollars. Thus the onus of proof is on you. NOT the sceptic is camp.

          You like analogies I see (like the non applicable cancer example) so here’s one for you.

          “please present to me any scientific literature that emphatically proves climate change wrong God doesn’t exist.

          If you don’t the church will force you to pay tithes and offerings whether you believe in His existence or not. It’s for a good cause. Saving your soul and the world. The church can’t prove anything but that’s OK. It’s the “precautionary” principle.

      • >So, let’s say you did have cancer and went to an oncologist to be treated, @brc. Are you saying that you would ignore the treatment recommendation of your doctor simply because it was the consensus position?

        If I could speak to a range of patients who had gone through the treatment, and were cured. If I could see indepently published statistics of the survival rate, then I would probably agree with the treatment. What the doctors peers said would be irrelevant to me. Dr Charlie Theo is an example of someone who deals with cancer and certainly doesn’t enjoy a consensus in his work. If he were my specialist, I’d look at the survival rates and side effects and make a judgement – and completely ignore what the consensus of his work was.

        However, if my oncologist said to me:
        ‘We think we can cure you with this treatment. It’s never actualy been tried, but our computer models think it will work. You, your children, all of your family and all of your friends will have to change their way of life for ever to enact the cure. ‘
        Then my answer would be a firm NO, no matter how many of his chums sang from the same hymn sheet.

        Is that plain enough for you?

        “Please show me convincing evidence that comes to the opposite conclusion and I will gladly eat my hat.”

        How about this evidence:
        – missing hot spot greenhouse gas signature that the models predict
        – earlier warm periods with no co2 explanation (ie MWP)
        – vostok ice cores show co2 lagging temp rise, not preceeding it
        – no significant warming in 10 years

        This evidence all points to the falsification of the AGW hypothesis that c02 emissions have a significant effect on the global temperature. The best explanation we have is that we don’t understand what has caused planetary warming of the climate in the last 30-40 years. At this point, the null hypothesis is the one that holds – the temperatue change is due to causes unknown.

        Enjoy your hat, I hope it’s not a 10-gallon one.

        • nathorange says:

          Firstly, you can’t on the one hand claim that computer modelling is wrong and then cite data from those models as evidence for your point. That is disingenuous.

          Secondly, the MWP was an anomaly. If you look at it in the context of all other warming and cooling periods in the Earth’s history, it is an exception to the general rule. But a single anomaly in the context of the entire history of the Earth is not evidence against the consensus position of global temperature rises and falls caused by CO2 and other GHG concentrations. Anomalies are not always statistically significant. To claim MWP as your proof is to ignore the rest of the data. All one can conclude from the current evidence about MWP is that that particular warming period had a cause other that CO2 concentrations. That doesn’t mean that ALL warming periods have causes other than CO2.

          The lag between historical temperature and CO2 concentration measurements in ice cores is really the only point you make that has any substance. There are mechanisms that science already understands that can explain this discrepancy, such as feedback loops, for example. There IS debate in the scientific community about the significance of the lag, not whether the lag exists or not. If our current warming, for argument sake, WAS comprehensively found to be initiated by factors other than rising CO2, it would not change one iota the physical consequence of the human-induced elevation of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere: ie. intensified warming. Decarbonisation would still need to be initiated.

        • You continually fail to comprehend what I’m saying, and here’s another example.

          1. The models are used to prove the CAGW scenario, and are the main reason people are asking for action (yes, climate scientists and politicians).

          2. The models predicted a hot spot in the atmosphere.

          3. The hotspot isn’t there – actual evidence and measurements is different to the model predictions.

          4. The models are wrong, somehow, somewhere.

          5. The models cannot be used or trusted.

          Is that clear enough for you?

          And the MWP an ‘anomaly’.

          Gaia in heaven, man, one anomaly is enough to disprove a theory. You can’t just skip over inconvenient data and call it an ‘anomaly’. It existed. It happened. The earth warmed without any input from co2. Therefore co2 does not control temperature. Therefore the current warming could be for the same reason as the MWP, and the elevated levels of co2 are an interesting fact but not definitively the cause. You can’t say ‘co2 causes warming, except when something else does’. That is not a theory.

          Face it – these simple 4 points have busted the entire theory apart, and as much as scientists can run around and sketch in details, massage figures and invent explanations – the fact is that the theory is wrong because the data doesn’t fit. You can measure glaciers, terrorize penguins and look at sea ice till your retirement, but none of the symptoms of warming actually prove what the cause is. The theory has to be discarded and new evidence and new theories need to be found to explain the climate.

          Most people have no trouble agreeing with this unless they are fully invested into a belief system that is preventing them from opening their eyes.

          Doesn’t it worry you that something like $30 billion has been spent on this and still nothing concrete has been found, except for a raft of new funding applications and a bunch of backtracking, flip-flipping and curve-fitting data? That money could have gone to a lot of other scientific research.

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          “Gaia in heaven, man….”

          Love your work brc!

        • nathorange says:

          Not at all, @brc. One anomaly does not discredit the theory on its own. However, if you can use that anomaly to devise a new updated theory and then go out and find new evidence; and if that new evidence fails to support the older theory but supports the new theory, then maybe you have something to go by.

          So, where’s the new theory, I ask?

          It is not enough to say “I think the theory of AGW is wrong because of this singular piece of data”. You have to have another theory that explains how that piece of data fits, otherwise it remains an anomaly. And then if all successive evidence tends to support this new theory over the other, then viola! You have yourself a new theory.

          I ask again: What is this new theory? If you are about to say “It’s the sun”, I’m afraid NASA scientists (among others) have debunked that one already.

        • nathorange says:

          Your understanding of models and their function is rather rudimentary. Models are not inherently dubious.

          You can appreciate, I’m sure, that the climate is a very complex system. Computer models are designed to mimic this system in every way possible so that the best predictions can be obtained. The more conditions and synergies that you observe in the real-world climate system (and then include in your model), the closer your model will match the real world. If you find that your model does not match real world conditions, there’s no need to throw it out entirely. All it means is that there are some (probably many) complex aspects of the climate system that are missing from your model. So the more data you obtain, the more accurate your model will become.

          Therefore, there’s no surprise at all that there is an unobservable hotspot predicted by a model. It is reasonable to expect such a discrepency. But this is NOT PROOF that AGW is false.

        • Love your work brc!

          Hear, hear The Loaded Dog! Hat tip, too, to nathorange for providing a target!

          One anomaly does not discredit the theory on its own.

          No, nathorange, brc is correct. That is the Scientific Method. When proposing a hypothesis – for example that all swans are white – it is no use counting white swans to prove it. That does nothing to “settle the science”. Look instead for black swans to disprove it. When one – and only one – black swan is identified, that is the end of the hypothesis.

          Applying the white swan analogy to CAGW, there are more than one black swans as brc has spelt out. The science indeed is settled. CAGW is a dud, mate.

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          Come on nathie.

          You’re a time waster aren’t you?

          Go on……admit it.

          We won’t think any less of you than we already do.

          Err, so when will we be seeing some of that “reasoned debate” you were talking of below?

          Soon I hope as my sides are still aching from your use of the phrase to describe your rantings.

  11. pete the Geostratusr says:

    nobody is denying climate change. The climate changes daily…in the morning it’s sunny…in the summer it’s hot…..that’s climate change.

    Anthropocentric climate change is the issue and if it’s related to C02 and if it has somehow intensified Yasi…

    realistically, with global population growth being the root cause AGW, if you green freaks really did hold the conviction of your views you’d use condoms or have a vasectomy (or get your partner to…).

    This will have two effects, it’ll reduce the population and hence Co2 emissions, it’ll also increase the overall IQ of the human race.

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      if you green freaks really did hold the conviction of your views you’d use condoms or have a vasectomy (or get your partner to…)

      Hang on a minute….hold the phone….

      Why Yes, yes….yes..we do have consensus on that pete.

      Well done!

    • nathorange says:

      @pete the geostratusr: you said you doubted anthropogenic global warming. But you still haven’t answered my question: what kind of scientist are you exactly? (Obviously one who doesn’t know the simple difference between weather and climate. oops! How else could you write this: “nobody is denying climate change. The climate changes daily…in the morning it’s sunny…in the summer it’s hot…..that’s climate change.”)

      • The Loaded Dog says:

        Obviously one who doesn’t know the simple difference between weather and climate. oops!

        “Ooops,” that damn inconvenient little thing called history is about to gatecrash your dull party.

        History has always been unkind to you warmists hasn’t it nathorange?

        No wonder you constantly try to dismiss or alternatively just smooth it over. Just like that pesky MWP.

        So, given this is the land of “drought and flooding rains” maybe YOU could answer a question for us genius.

        Please explain to us how anthropogenic emissions influenced the following events. (specifically the numerous events that occurred PRIOR to industrialisation):-

        Firstly lets look at Qld floods shall we?

        http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml

        Secondly, your favourite, lets look at Cyclones. Ooooooh, I just love this quote:-

        There have been 207 known impacts from tropical cyclones along the east coast since 1858. Major east coast tropical cyclones impacts include 1890 Cardwell; 1893 Brisbane; 1898 NSW; 1899 Bathurst Bay; 1918 Innisfail; 1918 Mackay; 1927 Cairns and inland areas; 1934 Port Douglas; 1949 Rockhampton; 1954 Gold Coast; 1967 Dinah, Southern Queensland; 1970 Ada, Whitsunday Islands; 1971 Althea, Townsville; 1974 Wanda, Brisbane; and 2006 Larry, Innisfail.

        The Queensland region of the Gulf of Carpentaria region has been hit by several disastrous tropical cyclones. These include The 1887 Burketown cyclone, The 1923 Douglas Mawson cyclone, The 1936 Mornington Island cyclone; the 1948 Bentick Island cyclone

        http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/about/cyclones-eastern.shtml

        It’s from the BOM so you KNOW it’s good…and just look at all those events in the 19th century!

        Can I guess your response?……I’ll bet I can.

        Just for laughs, lets just see if you prove me right and give us the old “one size fits all” denier alert chestnut.

        tick tick tick tick…..

        • nathorange says:

          Your aggression, @the loaded dog, hasn’t gone unnoticed. It seems to be clouding the way you even engage with this issue. It is difficult, then, for a reasoned discussion to be had. That’s unfortunate.

          I’m not sure exactly what your list of past cyclonic events aims to prove. If you had more comprehensive data for even older as well as future cyclonic events, including frequency, intensity, spatial and temporal distributions etc. then maybe you would have something more meaningful to compare your original data to. Comprehensiveness is essential. Cherry-picking bits of data here and there is poor science. I challenge you to take into account ALL the data that’s available to you and maybe your frame of view won’t come across so narrow.

          Actually, @the loaded dog, understanding the Earth’s climatic history is essential for understanding today’s and tomorrow’s climate patterns. Prehistoric warming events (and cooling events for that matter) took place over vast periods of time. Species had time to adapt and evolve in their new conditions. The difference between then and now is that the climatic changes today are occurring at a much more rapid rate. Wouldn’t you agree? There is hard empirical evidence to support this. And there is more and more evidence in the scientific literature to suggest that human activities are responsible. Maybe you should have a look. Maybe I can post you some articles so you can see for yourself.

        • nathorange says:

          What CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions have to do with cyclones and floods and other severe weather events is really quite simple to comprehend. Most school children find it fairly easy. I’m quite surprised you don’t, @the loaded dog. The more of these gases we have in the atmosphere the more they trap heat and the more the earth’s oceans warm. The warmer the ocean water the HIGHER THE LIKELIHOOD that cyclones will be more intense and more frequent. No one anywhere is saying that a cyclone is CAUSED by climate change. That is your own invented straw man. What scientists are saying is that cyclones will be INTENSIFIED due to climatic changes. You really need to listen and read what is actually said, not what you imagine you hear.

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          Your aggression, @the loaded dog, hasn’t gone unnoticed.

          My aggression is aimed squarely at your movement that collectively and arrogantly seems to believe that no one else can have a valid opinion. Incidentally I used to buy the lie until I did some research into it myself.

          I am not a scientist, but have an investigative background (20 years) I work in a government department and for that period of time have witnessed first hand how political interference skews statistics.

          What I am saying here QUITE PLAINLY is that the statistics that were being provided were WRONG. They were and still are “fudged” to provide a desired result. Sure, they are partially true but they do NOT provide the complete truth.

          As such when you state there is “hard empirical evidence” to support Global Warming and further that there is “more and more evidence in the scientific literature to suggest that human activities are responsible” the alarm bells start ringing.

          The funding of this whole fiasco has come from BIG GOVERNMENT and I know I could safely bet my left nut that the statistics your pet theory are based on are flawed.

          Anyone who still supports this theory without
          question after becoming aware of the content of the Climategate emails, the corruption of weather station data used to support the theory, use of dodgy computer code, use of computer modeling etc etc etc is in my opinion a gullible fool.

          You DON’T have to be a scientist to smell a dead rat.

        • nathorange says:

          Wow, @TLD, you are quite adept at spewing forth formal fallacies of all kinds. It really is a talent.

          But nothing you have said so far even remotely adds to the SCIENTIFIC discussion. Every comment you make, every opinion you throw around is riddled with not rationality or objectivity (the hallmarks of science) but ridicule, contempt and fear (the hallmarks of dogmatism).

          That’s a shame.

      • pete the Geostratusr says:

        oh come on! read my sig, figure it out, it’s not that hard….

        lol that’s funny….yes i do know the difference…weather is something like cylone Yasi. Unrelated to AGW.

        now for you, do you know the difference between AGW and climate change?

        • nathorange says:

          Absolutely cyclone yasi was a weather event. A very conspicuous violent weather event. But we’re not talking about weather changes or singular weather events on this blog, are we. This blog is all about CLIMATE change. So I wonder if you would be so kind as to give us all a comprehensive dictionary definition of climate, so we can see that you actually DO understand the difference between weather and climate.

        • pete the Geostratusr says:

          “But we’re not talking about weather changes or singular weather events on this blog, are we.”

          Oh dam…I read the topic at the top and thought we we’re discussing the statement of the greens implying that Yasi was caused by global warming….

          if I’m posting in the wrong spot to discuss this, please let me know.

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          nathorange laments – “What CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions have to do with cyclones and floods and other severe weather events is really quite simple to comprehend. Most school children find it fairly easy.”

          Hmmm, yes. Now if you could just convince everyone to think like school children you would have everyone agreeing with your theory wouldn’t you?

        • pete the Geostratusr says:

          nathorange;
          “No one anywhere is saying that a cyclone is CAUSED by climate change.”

          did you even read the article at the top of blog?

          Bob Brown even blamed the Qld floods on the coal mining industry, the sheer lunacy of these statements does the warmist cause not good at all and goes a goodly way to explaining why so many of us are getting fed up to the eye teeth with “global warming” trotted out as the cause / contributing factor for every hurricane / cylone / drought / flood / cold snap / hot snap.

          you would have gotten famore credibility here if you said, yes I think the AGW hypothesis is resonable, but there appears to be little proof currently that it caused Yasi…

          the whole term “climate change” is actually not a particularly helpful one to this discussion, the climate is and has always changed….may as well just call it climate, which is why I prefer the the term AGW, it’s more precise, it calls it global waring and it attributes the cause of said global warming to human activiy.

          but that could just be me, being precise is one of the other little foibles I picked up with a scientific education….

        • nathorange says:

          You ought to re-read the article yourself, @PTG. Misquoting and misappropriating people’s words isn’t helpful. The article says “The party was heavily criticised after it LINKED [that’s LINKED] the Queensland floods to climate change”. Claiming a link does not mean claiming a cause.

          I’ll repeat myself again: no-one is saying that climate change CAUSES cyclones. Climate change INTENSIFIES and MAGNIFIES THE FREQUENCY of cyclones. That is the link they are talking about. Did you happen at all to read the last paragraph of the article???? Or any of the scientific articles talking about severe weather events increasing and intensifying due to climate change? No? What’s that? You suffer from cherry-picking syndrome? I see.

        • pete the Geostratusr says:

          I’ll repeat myself again: no-one is saying that climate change CAUSES cyclones. Climate change INTENSIFIES and MAGNIFIES THE FREQUENCY of cyclones.

          Prove it.

          You can’t…nobody can.

        • pete the Geostratusr says:

          The question of AGW debate is generally not really whether humans are changing the climate, or really about any science at all, it is an argument via proxy of opposing ideologies

          err…no. Maybe in the media, but there are scientists on both sides of the debate who honestly belive in the positions they are espousing re AGW.

  12. Keep your heads in the sand, you lemmings! This blog just shows why we deserve to become, and probably manage to make ourselves extinct. Lack of intelligence in a majority of denialists that can’t cope with change. Keep your emissions up and bring on climate change! This planet will be better off without such morrons!

    • Wow. Give them enough rope, as the saying goes. The vitriolic hatred of the true believers eventually shows through. The heresy of questioning their quasi-religious orthodoxy is just too much for some people to bear, just as the Catholic church could not abide Galileo and his theory on the motion of the planets, so they arrested him. Oh, wait, he was proved right, wasn’t he? Or how about stomach ulcers, remember that one Zoe? It took just two dedicated scientists to prove generations of myths wrong. Maybe they should be locked up too, perhaps? Your ignorance of the scientific process is staggering, but unsurprising – proper science isn’t taught in schools any more, just propaganda. Science IS scepticism. If the hypothesis of man-made warming is correct, it should stand on its own feet under harsh scrutiny, not hidden away, or fudged by climate scientists with a political axe to grind. “Share your data and methods freely with your sworn enemy” is the rule those scientists should abide by, and until they do, this blog, and thousands of others like it, will remain.

    • Ah yes, the denier alert has gone out far and wide, and the human haters have flooded in!

      Zoe, have a read back of what you just wrote, and ask yourself : was that a reasonable thing to post? I suppose you are disappointed that the cyclone didn’t claim any lives?

      You may hate your life but I don’t. Call it a wild guess but I think intelligence is a factor in being able to see past groupthink and brainwashing, and maintain and question two points of view in your head at the one point in time. Every day I am confronted with opinions that oppose my own, so I have to constantly evaluate whether I’m still on the right track. I even know how to spell ‘moron’.

      It’s much easier to sit in a fug of contentment and rage fed by other people. It even gives some people meaning to their life to hate the world and carry around a burden of guilt for existing.

      I can cope with change – even of the warmer temperature kind. Can you cope with your belief system falling apart, and realising you’ve been lied to?

      Oh, and while we’re clearing things up : the popular sayings are:
      – lemmings follow each other over a cliff to their death
      – ostriches stick their heads in the sand.

      Neither is actually correct – they’re just sayings, but just thought I’d help with your education, seeing as the people paid to do it appear to have failed thus far.

      • And whilst we’re being pedantic (thanks Bruce!) “morons” only has one “r”…

        Ah, the wonders of education.

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      This blog just shows why we deserve to become, and probably manage to make ourselves extinct.

      Oh dear the pain the pain and woe is me,
      the end is nigh and we’re all going to die.

      Man, do you buffoons have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

      Err, no, I doubt it.

      Oh, by the way, have you finished knitting that hair shirt yet?

      Perhaps you should stick to that as you certainly don’t have a grasp on reality.

      Man you’re really hooked some nutters here Simon.

      Well done, they are providing us with endless entertainment.

      (hope this isn’t a double up. I had some trouble submitting this post. But I just HAD to resubmit. It’s all just too much fun)

  13. The oil companies can go and deck themselves as far as I’m concerned but we’re still not bowing down to nazist green ignorance of real science. If you do your blekkoing you will find how there is a huge correlation between global warming theory and Margaret Sanger’s eugenics which seeks to kill the medium to poor budget and black people in favor of the rich and famous thanks to the rockerfellers and the cabahls of the world banks and to create a world government.

    Now call me f#%^ed in the brain but if you look around the web for yourself please.

  14. In a Warm Room, the Globe Feels Hotter

    for each 3.5 degree rise in temperature above a local average, Americans became 1 percent more likely to agree that “solid evidence” exists that the earth is getting warmer.

    Maybe nathorange, El and Zoe should spend more time in the shade with a good book on Scientific Method 101!

  15. Taking a polarised view of any scientific issue is irrational, and those involved in any scientific enquiry recognize the limits of applicability of their investigation and the inherent uncertainties in any result or hypothesis, no matter the nature of the scientific topic. Though unfortunately we must make decisions based upon the best information which is available.

    The question of AGW debate is generally not really whether humans are changing the climate, or really about any science at all, it is an argument via proxy of opposing ideologies; “big government” vs “free markets”, capitalism vs socialism, environmental protection vs man’s dominion over nature, intergenerational equity vs shareholder profits, national interest vs world interest, personal interest vs the common good. In terms of determining the actions to take to mitigate the potential for AGW we must take actions which are based upon science, actions which are commensurate to both the uncertainty and the magnitude of the threat of the hazard.

    The fact of the matter is that a risk management approach must be taken, do not misinterpret my meaning of risk management as a “filthy greeny” definition which is usually “take limitless action to address a hazard and probability of occurrence regardless of the magnitude”. However actions must be taken based upon the best available information, we may be able to artificially construct complete certainty in our minds but this does not exist in reality, to maintain rationality you must be able to change your opinion based upon changing information. I’m not in a position to say whether AGW theory is sufficiently certain to justify action, and my feelings about the potential results of this action do not change the validity of the science. Though I can understand the completely natural responses on these blogs to perceived threats to your ideology.

    I guess you could label me a ‘warmist’ if I had to conform to the tribal group labels which always takes place in discussions about AGW (or any contentious discussion), but that is only my current position based upon the information available, but it isn’t ideologically cemented into place. When you allow yourself to be constrained by static ideology you lose your objectivity and have subscribed to dogma

    My thought experiment for all of you in both climate-tribe “camps” is this –
    in a hypothetical world, what specific information or type of scientific observation would have to come to light which would enable you to ‘switch camps’ and support the opposing point of view? If you are able to, critically analyze this answer and determine whether this could in fact be realistically “proven” to you within the real-world limitations of scientific certainty. Are you still objective, or have you become dogmatic? Just remember, have you ever met someone who admits their beliefs are based upon unprovable principles? One of these dogmatists in denial could just as easily be you

    • nathorange says:

      At last a truly rational voice through all the din!

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      The question of AGW debate is generally not really whether humans are changing the climate, or really about any science at all, it is an argument via proxy of opposing ideologies; “big government” vs “free markets”, capitalism vs socialism, environmental protection vs man’s dominion over nature, intergenerational equity vs shareholder profits, national interest vs world interest, personal interest vs the common good.

      Sure is a generalisation as I personally (and all of my numerous “denier mates”) do NOT subscribe to either end of your ideological spectrum.

      Both ends of that spectrum are fraught with danger being founded on the control and oppression of others.

      Interestingly enough, the way you spat out the last few examples leaves little doubt in my mind what ideological bent you are; even though you tried to cloak that ideology with mature independence and intellectual tolerance.

      • nathorange says:

        That’s right @TLD! (sarc). You don’t attack the Greens for being marxist hippies at all (sarc.). You don’t call climate scientists buffoons or label discerning citizens “religious fanatics”(sarc.). You don’t belong anywhere on the ideological scale because you are utterly free of bias, an impartial and fully objective rational beacon of light to us all (sarc.).

        The fact that you can’t see the truth of who you really are is hardly surprising, considering your comments. Peter’s observation was level-headed, self-reflective, rational, evaluative and wise. Your eager readiness to discredit him says it all really.

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          You are sounding more and more incoherent and confused nathorange.

          Have you had your medication today?

          If you have I suggest you see your Doctor urgently – your dosage needs adjustment.

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          Oh, and one more thing nathorange.

          Have you considered subscribing to one of the other major religions?

          “The faith” of AGW seems a bit of a letdown for you as you certainly don’t seem to be gaining any converts here.

          I hear the other religions have a much higher success rate and after all, that’s what your aim is isn’t it; to get converts to “the cause”?

          You claim to be scientifically credible, but the very fact that you are wasting everyone’s time here including your own makes me question your intellectual capacity.

          I’m sure many others here are wondering the same thing.

          Just what exactly do you expect to gain by continuing your inane rantings here?

        • nathorange says:

          Bla bla bla, here we go again from @TLD…. one straw man argument after another, and more of the same ad hominem attacks flying here there and everywhere. STICK TO THE SCIENCE. If this blog had any ambition of credibility at all it should be welcoming reasoned argument the likes of which I have been posting. The more you and your friends unreasonably attack people’s characters and motives, the more you debase your own slant on the issue. It is a wholly unwelcome and unscrupulous tactic. Give it up.

        • Here is a list of cyclones recorded in QLD since 1864..There have been far worse ones than YASI..Each individual cyclone has it’s own set of scientific aspects wind speed ocean current temps blah blah,,To generalize global warming into yasi is complete and utter nonsense.

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          nathorange is a time waster…

          That is NOT an ad hominem nathie as you have kindly provided us with all the proof needed to support the charge.

          Care to argue that point?

          Oh, but here’s my favorite bit:-

          If this blog had any ambition of credibility at all it should be welcoming reasoned argument the likes of which I have been posting.

          Reasoned argument huh?

          When were you thinking of providing us with some of that?

          Ohhhh, it’s ok nathie, don’t be too upset.

          I’ll wager your “reasoned argument” line is the funniest line in this whole post.

          YOU, my friend are a comic genius….

          AND a time waster….

        • pete the Geostratusr says:

          Bla bla bla, here we go again from @nathorange, another bleeting sheep following the flock blindly repeating the bleats of all the other sheep

          stick to the science? You don’t even know what science is, If you had any ambitions of credability, you’d realise that your rantings are acheiving nothing here and you’d desist, but you don’t, why?

          because You are a troll.

          simple as that

          so don’t cry foul if TLD (who worked this out long before I did) posts ridicule in response, afterall, it’s the only logical way to deal with an illogical Troll.

  16. I’m going to round out the various threads here in one post.

    On Consensus;
    I agree consensus is a valid position in Science. Some type of consensus must be reached to move forwards and conduct more experiments, gather more data.
    However : consensus is the artefact of science with a level of proof. It is not proof in itself. You can talk about a consensus and describe a consensus, you can even count hands to see how big your consensus is. But you cannot invoke the consensus as proof of the theory.

    On Theories and Hypothesis : It’s normal practice to state your theory (human GHG emissions are affecting the climate in a significant way) and then to state the null hypothesis : (human GHG are not affecting the climate in a significant way). If the observed data does not fit the hyphothesis, then the theory is false. You cannot curve fit data, or make one set of predictions and then flip them 180 degrees when they did not come true. You cannot ignore a 300 year long period of warming as a one-off anomaly because it doesn’t fit the theory. If something made the earth warm during the MWP, then that same cause might be doing it now.

    On Computer Modelling : Of course computer modelling is a useful scenario. It’s possible to model very complex scenarios and design items using a computer which will then translate to real life perfectly. This is not in question. The value of computer models, though, degrades as the number of guesses are used as variable inputs. I would say the value decreases to the square of guesstimates introduced. You might say they get the values to within 300 or 400%, but those sorts of ranges are completely useless in the real world. The other thing with computer models is that they are not proof. You can’t model something and then declare that as proof. You can model something, then compare the output to real-world measurements, and try to validate the model. This can be in predictive values or outcomes (the hot spot, which doesn’t exist) or in hindcasting (successfully predicting past scenarios based on known data at the time, which the GCMs cannot do). But you cannot create a theory, build a model around it, then wave the model around as proof that your theory is right.

    Finally, if your theory has been falsified (which CAGW has, because of failure for the models to predict the outcome, failure for the hot spot to show up, failure for the ice-cores to confirm the theory that co2 drives temperature) then you don’t need to come up with a new theory. This seems to be the latest meme coming from the climate disinformation blogs and denier-alert fact lists ‘you come up with a better theory then’. It’s not a ratchet of competing theories – if one is false, you go straight back to ‘I don’t know why the earth gets warmer’. You do not keep the flawed theory going until a better one comes along. The falsified theory goes into the bin, and the playing pieces are returned to square one. A useless theory kept because there is no better explanation is still useless. Useless at predicting, useless at formulating a policy response – the only thing it is useful for is obtaining more research money, and for politicians, media and money makers to hijack for their own ends.

    Which, back in the real world, the CAGW theory has only been good at gathering money and power into the hands of a few people. Not one accurate climate scenario has been predicted, not one single human life has been improved as a result of co2-based climate science, despite 30 years of research and billions of funding. The only possible positive outcome there might be would be the development of cleaner energy technologies, but this is unlikely to be the case because of the distorting effect of tax based subsidies which are only one change in government away from being trashed. Governments are hopeless at choosing the correct horse. Any advancement in clean technology will have to stand on it’s own economic credentials irrespective of a governments will and ability to impose a solution by penalising others. Because the only way of imposing an economically inferior solution is to force people to do it by force and coercion. And in the free and democratic world, that’s not going to fly for very long.

    “It is not enough to say “I think the theory of AGW is wrong because of this singular piece of data”.

    That’s wrong. Any singular piece of data can and does invalidate a theory. And you don’t need a new theory.

    For the record, I am equally skeptical of all theories to explain climate, simply because there are so many variables, and because there is no real way of proving any of them. My theory is simple: ‘we don’t know, and are unlikely to be able to know anytime soon’. The null hypothesis holds firm.

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      You’ve outdone yourself brc!

      Common sense, logic and reasoned argument abounding.

      But you’re wasting you’re time with the likes of nathie.

      Warmists (especially warmist trolls) don’t recognise any of those qualities.

      On a positive note though.

      Any open minded half person with even half an ounce of intelligence who has read the exchanges between you and the denier alerted troll nathorange will see the truth in your argument.

      cheers TLD…

      • The Loaded Dog says:

        Any open minded half person with even half an ounce of intelligence who has read the exchanges between you and the denier alerted troll nathorange will see the truth in your argument.

        Sorry, should read “Any open minded person”….etc

Trackbacks

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Paul Tran, Simon from Sydney. Simon from Sydney said: Greens blame Cyclone Yasi on "climate change": Does anyone really give a flying f**k what the Greens think any m… http://bit.ly/fCmAss […]

  2. […] been stupid enough to vote these idiots into the balance of power in the Senate beggars belief. Greens blame Cyclone Yasi on “climate change” | Australian Climate Madness It is getting sad […]

  3. […] of dying because of their fraudulent policies? “Global warming causes the cold“, “Global warming causes the Yasi cyclone – Milne, “During floods farmers need to have their water entitlements rationed because of global […]

%d bloggers like this: