The 2013/2014 Off Season Thread

[Gronk]

Still a very narrow and socially homogenous demographic. What makes them any less likely to have an agenda?

Which is why they publish their data and hypotheses. They are very happy to stick their chin out for anyone to punch it.

Yet all the deniers have are throw away comments like "there is no evidence ..." :lol: Says who ? Like I said, prove them wrong and THAT scientist will be world famous. When it happens, I will join the club.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

No one can explain the trend ? Hasn't deviated in any statistically significant way ? Very Alan Jones that. Bamboozle the your fellow amateurs with gobbledygook hoping that they slink away drowning in conflicting graphs and stats. Bottom line is that 99.99999999999999999% of scientists don't agree with you merkin.

You and Big Al, my friend, are what they call climate change confusionists.

Show me published scientific papers which proves that climate change is simply Y2K Part 2 and I will put my hand up and join your club.

So you don't have any answers, Gronk? Can't point me to any papers (which I would definitely read with an open mind)?

No? Didn't think so.

Thanks.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

What are you merkins even talking about?

 

[Gronk]

So you don't have any answers, Gronk? Can't point me to any papers (which I would definitely read with an open mind)?

No? Didn't think so.

Thanks.

Now you're just being a bitch.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/climate2013/index.xhtml

http://www.sciencedomain.org/journal-home.php?id=10

http://www.nature.com/search/execut...e&sp-c=25&sp-m=0&sp-s=&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-p=all

 

[Daneel]

What are you merkins even talking about?

They wouldn't have a f*cken clue ME, but they think they sound intelligent by pretending they do

 

[Gronk]

They wouldn't have a f*cken clue ME, but they think they sound intelligent by pretending they do

Alas, I have been exposed. :crazy:

#curses

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Now you're just being a bitch.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/climate2013/index.xhtml

Not scientific papers but instead a magazine with articles and some papers. None of which, by the way, discuss the pre-IR trend. There's also a paywall here.

http://www.sciencedomain.org/journal-home.php?id=10

Better, in that it is a journal, but guess what? None of the pieces discuss the pre-IR trend.

http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q-1=NATURE%2CNEWS&sp-q=climate+change&sp-c=25&sp-m=0&sp-s=&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-p=all

Another journal, which is nice. However, not only do (once again) none of the listed pieces appear to discuss the pre-IR trend but there's actually a paywall to even see the articles.

That's nice, I have no problem with a paywall, but it just means chances are you haven't even read the articles yourself, which is hilarious.

***

Gronk, all you have proven here is that you are yet another ignorant climate alarmist. Posting links to Climate Change websites as a generalised response to a very specific issue (pre-IR trend) doesn't do anything other than illustrate that you don't actually know what you're talking about and that you have no answers.

Once again, Gronk - please direct me to published pieces (not website articles) that explain the natural trend prior to the Industrial Revolution and why it's continuation is all of a sudden anthropogenic in nature.

Actually, Gronk, do you even understand what I'm talking about? Is it possible that you are unable to provide anything not just because you're an ignorant alarmist but also because you don't actually have the capacity to understand the issue?

 

[Gronk]

Not scientific papers but instead a magazine with articles and some papers. None of which, by the way, discuss the pre-IR trend. There's also a paywall here.

Better, in that it is a journal, but guess what? None of the pieces discuss the pre-IR trend.

Another journal, which is nice. However, not only do (once again) none of the listed pieces appear to discuss the pre-IR trend but there's actually a paywall to even see the articles.

That's nice, I have no problem with a paywall, but it just means chances are you haven't even read the articles yourself, which is hilarious.

***

Gronk, all you have proven here is that you are yet another ignorant climate alarmist. Posting links to Climate Change websites as a generalised response to a very specific issue (pre-IR trend) doesn't do anything other than illustrate that you don't actually know what you're talking about and that you have no answers.

Once again, Gronk - please direct me to published pieces (not website articles) that explain the natural trend prior to the Industrial Revolution and why it's continuation is all of a sudden anthropogenic in nature.

Actually, Gronk, do you even understand what I'm talking about? Is it possible that you are unable to provide anything not just because you're an ignorant alarmist but also because you don't actually have the capacity to understand the issue?

My links weren't to you liking ? OK when I have more time, I will ask Mr Google to spend more than 0.12 seconds searching.

In the meantime, this of course means that you're right and I am just a silly climate change alarmist.

:nwave:

 

[Gary Gutful]

Personally I can't wait for global warming. I had to wear thermals to bed last night.

 

[Bigfella]

Get an electric blanket and you can help speed up the process

 

[born an eel]

The climate has been warming since the last ice age 11,500 years ago,
amazing how the climate has been changing longer than modern records have been kept.

Lets record a few hundred years out of millions and be alarmist.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/water_and_ice/ice_age

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Which is why they publish their data and hypotheses. They are very happy to stick their chin out for anyone to punch it.

Yet all the deniers have are throw away comments like "there is no evidence ..." :lol: Says who ? Like I said, prove them wrong and THAT scientist will be world famous. When it happens, I will join the club.

If it had been proven either way there would be consensus within the scientific community. Like there is for every other proven scientific theory.

The fact that the majority of scientists lean toward one position just indicates there is a bias within the scientific community for a particular type of solution. If you consider scientists to be self interested rational actors then you will agree that the one thing that all climate scientists want is increased funding for climate research. That is only going to come from wealthy Western states, but only if the idea can be perpetuated that there is a problem (climate change) and only if that problem's cause (and therefore its solution) is within the scope of Western states to control (human activity).

That 99% of climate scientists support the AGW theory doesn't mean that the evidence is 99% in favour. If it was there would be 100% consensus. Instead it just means the evidence is somewhere around 50/50, and that 99% of climate scientists benefit personally from public acceptance of the theory.

As for publishing their evidence, who is even capable of challenging it outside of the elite climate science community? If I don't understand the science then I know you certainly f**king don't. And neither does any other non-scientist. To be honest it's a worry that so many people put their faith in scientists, blindly believing what they're told. For a group that is highly educated and poorly remunerated they have plenty of reason to deceive themselves and the rest of us intellectual 'peasants'.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

I can report there is no global warming at Randwick today.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

My links weren't to you liking ? OK when I have more time, I will ask Mr Google to spend more than 0.12 seconds searching.

In the meantime, this of course means that you're right and I am just a silly climate change alarmist.

:nwave:

And that's the problem with you and the rest of the alarmists: all you do is a google search and post some links you didn't even bother to look at, yet alone understand.

You know nothing, Gronk Snow.

If I don't understand the science then I know you certainly f**king don't.

I do.

And neither does any other non-scientist.

I guess that makes me a scientician.

For a group that is highly educated and poorly remunerated they have plenty of reason to deceive themselves and the rest of us intellectual 'peasants'.

That's a fair point that few people are willing to concede. Scientists are just as human as everyone else and there is just as much to gain for them by promoting climate alarmism as there is for the fossil fuel industry to campaign against it.

 

[Gronk]

Originally Posted by Poupou Escobar
If I don't understand the science then I know you certainly f**king don't.

I do.

Excellent. Seeing you're such an expert. The floor is yours. Convince me.

A brief bibliography would give you some credibility (just saying).

 

[Gronk]

You might as well use this paper as a place to start. You can discredit their theories and statistics.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

Over to you HJ.

 

[emjaycee]

I just love an Off-season thread that is going strong after Round 14.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You might as well use this paper as a place to start. You can discredit their theories and statistics.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

Over to you HJ.

Why do you trust the people who wrote that paper, Gronk? And which theologian do you rely on for your understanding of the divine?

 

[strider]

Isn't it pronounced "Aragorn"????

thats right .... silent: S T R I D E R

 

[Gronk]

Why do you trust the people who wrote that paper, Gronk?

Never said I did. It's written by an eminent bunch of scholars. Ready for HJ to tell me why they are wrong.

And which theologian do you rely on for your understanding of the divine?

George Pell mate. The catholic church's version of Sargent Schultz.

Seems to be whole bunch of people sticking their heads in the sand for various reasons, eh ? ;-)