Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
1. I didn't say it took almost a century to prove the STR. It took almost 65 years to prove experimentally that Einstein's theory that high speed travel slows down time for the traveller.

2. Agreement about the certainty of what\s causing climate change in the scientific community is almost unanimous. It's only the fringe who still disagree.

3. Climate science is actually quite developed, the models are very skilful, very accurate and definitely underestimating climate change rather than over estimating, based on the real data. Side by side comparison of the modelling of real measurements against the predictive models shows a high degree of correlation. This demonstrates a high level of skill in the algorithms of the predictive modelling. Very high and getting better.

4. There are only two kinds of extremists in this area - the AGW deniers and the far left loonies, neither of which have any credibility.

Curious that you'd be so insistent on the accuracy of your statement about relativity and be happy with gross generalizations about climate science...

You're still wrong, by the way -- experiments in 1932 and 1939 indirectly and directly confirmed that the time dilationpredicted byrelativity indeed occur.Laterexperiments improved on the accuracy of the measurements but only reconfirmed what we already know.

You provideda good example to reinforce my point here -- the difference between classic mechanics and relativity are minor but the degree of accuracy relativity provides vitally important.

Climate science models are dependent on the data that getsprovidedthem, and are developed to represent that data and make predictions. When the model's predictionsdon'tmatch new data, the models get altered and retested.

The issue is the complexity of the systems and the difficulty in modeling them as accurately as we can, say, measure relativistic effects. The models may well be "very skillful", but they are not perfect.

Special and General Relativity has gone through no such gross revisions and (with caveats) are confirmed as they are down to very small measurements.

My point is that the language used regarding climate change does not accurately represent what is actually going on in the field andanyskepticism-- no matter how relevant -- is met with ... irrational belligerence, shall we say.

I'm splitting hairs, but like the difference between classic mechanics and relativity, accurate descriptions are important.

Regarding 2. -- what level of certainty? about what exactly? define "almost unanimous"? Because what you've stated there is at best an over-simplification of the actual opinions within the climate science community.

Makes for great headlines though.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
1. I didn't say it took almost a century to prove the STR. It took almost 65 years to prove experimentally that Einstein's theory that high speed travel slows down time for the traveller.

2. Agreement about the certainty of what\s causing climate change in the scientific community is almost unanimous. It's only the fringe who still disagree.

3. Climate science is actually quite developed, the models are very skilful, very accurate and definitely underestimating climate change rather than over estimating, based on the real data. Side by side comparison of the modelling of real measurements against the predictive models shows a high degree of correlation. This demonstrates a high level of skill in the algorithms of the predictive modelling. Very high and getting better.

4. There are only two kinds of extremists in this area - the AGW deniers and the far left loonies, neither of which have any credibility.

Curious that you'd be so insistent on the accuracy of your statement about relativity and be happy with gross generalizations about climate science...

You're still wrong, by the way -- experiments in 1932 and 1939 indirectly and directly confirmed that the time dilationpredicted byrelativity indeed occur.Laterexperiments improved on the accuracy of the measurements but only reconfirmed what we already know.

You provideda good example to reinforce my point here -- the difference between classic mechanics and relativity are minor but the degree of accuracy relativity provides vitally important.

Climate science models are dependent on the data that getsprovidedthem, and are developed to represent that data and make predictions. When the model's predictionsdon'tmatch new data, the models get altered and retested.

The issue is the complexity of the systems and the difficulty in modeling them as accurately as we can, say, measure relativistic effects. The models may well be "very skillful", but they are not perfect.

Special and General Relativity has gone through no such gross revisions and (with caveats) are confirmed as they are down to very small measurements.

My point is that the language used regarding climate change does not accurately represent what is actually going on in the field andanyskepticism-- no matter how relevant -- is met with ... irrational belligerence, shall we say.

I'm splitting hairs, but like the difference between classic mechanics and relativity, accurate descriptions are important.

Regarding 2. -- what level of certainty? about what exactly? define "almost unanimous"? Because what you've stated there is at best an over-simplification of the actual opinions within the climate science community.

Makes for great headlines though.

If you watched that you couldn't be struck by all of the crappy arguments made by a bunch of doofuses.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
1. I didn't say it took almost a century to prove the STR. It took almost 65 years to prove experimentally that Einstein's theory that high speed travel slows down time for the traveller.

2. Agreement about the certainty of what\s causing climate change in the scientific community is almost unanimous. It's only the fringe who still disagree.

3. Climate science is actually quite developed, the models are very skilful, very accurate and definitely underestimating climate change rather than over estimating, based on the real data. Side by side comparison of the modelling of real measurements against the predictive models shows a high degree of correlation. This demonstrates a high level of skill in the algorithms of the predictive modelling. Very high and getting better.

4. There are only two kinds of extremists in this area - the AGW deniers and the far left loonies, neither of which have any credibility.

Curious that you'd be so insistent on the accuracy of your statement about relativity and be happy with gross generalizations about climate science...

You're still wrong, by the way -- experiments in 1932 and 1939 indirectly and directly confirmed that the time dilationpredicted byrelativity indeed occur.Laterexperiments improved on the accuracy of the measurements but only reconfirmed what we already know.

You provideda good example to reinforce my point here -- the difference between classic mechanics and relativity are minor but the degree of accuracy relativity provides vitally important.

Climate science models are dependent on the data that getsprovidedthem, and are developed to represent that data and make predictions. When the model's predictionsdon'tmatch new data, the models get altered and retested.

The issue is the complexity of the systems and the difficulty in modeling them as accurately as we can, say, measure relativistic effects. The models may well be "very skillful", but they are not perfect.

Special and General Relativity has gone through no such gross revisions and (with caveats) are confirmed as they are down to very small measurements.

My point is that the language used regarding climate change does not accurately represent what is actually going on in the field andanyskepticism-- no matter how relevant -- is met with ... irrational belligerence, shall we say.

I'm splitting hairs, but like the difference between classic mechanics and relativity, accurate descriptions are important.

Regarding 2. -- what level of certainty? about what exactly? define "almost unanimous"? Because what you've stated there is at best an over-simplification of the actual opinions within the climate science community.

Makes for great headlines though.

If you watched that you couldn't be struck by all of the crappy arguments made by a bunch of doofuses.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but I was struck by the clarity of language, the candid description of the limits and reach of the science, and I was especially struck by the total absence of partisan political jabs or points scoring.

Undoubtedly yes but no more stupid than you would look arguing with a Christy or a Curry.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
1. I didn't say it took almost a century to prove the STR. It took almost 65 years to prove experimentally that Einstein's theory that high speed travel slows down time for the traveller.

2. Agreement about the certainty of what\s causing climate change in the scientific community is almost unanimous. It's only the fringe who still disagree.

3. Climate science is actually quite developed, the models are very skilful, very accurate and definitely underestimating climate change rather than over estimating, based on the real data. Side by side comparison of the modelling of real measurements against the predictive models shows a high degree of correlation. This demonstrates a high level of skill in the algorithms of the predictive modelling. Very high and getting better.

4. There are only two kinds of extremists in this area - the AGW deniers and the far left loonies, neither of which have any credibility.

Curious that you'd be so insistent on the accuracy of your statement about relativity and be happy with gross generalizations about climate science...

You're still wrong, by the way -- experiments in 1932 and 1939 indirectly and directly confirmed that the time dilationpredicted byrelativity indeed occur.Laterexperiments improved on the accuracy of the measurements but only reconfirmed what we already know.

You provideda good example to reinforce my point here -- the difference between classic mechanics and relativity are minor but the degree of accuracy relativity provides vitally important.

Climate science models are dependent on the data that getsprovidedthem, and are developed to represent that data and make predictions. When the model's predictionsdon'tmatch new data, the models get altered and retested.

The issue is the complexity of the systems and the difficulty in modeling them as accurately as we can, say, measure relativistic effects. The models may well be "very skillful", but they are not perfect.

Special and General Relativity has gone through no such gross revisions and (with caveats) are confirmed as they are down to very small measurements.

My point is that the language used regarding climate change does not accurately represent what is actually going on in the field andanyskepticism-- no matter how relevant -- is met with ... irrational belligerence, shall we say.

I'm splitting hairs, but like the difference between classic mechanics and relativity, accurate descriptions are important.

Regarding 2. -- what level of certainty? about what exactly? define "almost unanimous"? Because what you've stated there is at best an over-simplification of the actual opinions within the climate science community.

Makes for great headlines though.

You appear to be big on evidence and experimentation. Good on you.

Now, can you provide some evidence to support your theory that the present warming we're seeing is largely or wholly natural variability so we can put this tedious exchange to bed?

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
You appear to be big on evidence and experimentation. Good on you.

Now, can you provide some evidence to support your theory that the present warming we're seeing is largely or wholly natural variability so we can put this tedious exchange to bed?

Now, why would I want to do that? It's not my theory and not my point.

I think what you meant to say was "Hey, you were right, I was wrong. You might even have a point there."

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
You appear to be big on evidence and experimentation. Good on you.

Now, can you provide some evidence to support your theory that the present warming we're seeing is largely or wholly natural variability so we can put this tedious exchange to bed?

Now, why would I want to do that? It's not my theory and not my point.

I think what you meant to say was "Hey, you were right, I was wrong. You might even have a point there."

What is your point then? You appear to disagree with the validity of the science that points almost wholly towards human activity. You muddy the water by pretending that there's a significant opposition to the rigorous science with actual evidence. You further muddy the water by bringing up nuclear power, when electricity generation by burning fossil fuels is only part of the problem and is the only sector in Australia currently cutting emissions.

It is amusing hearing you whinge about how ugly wind turbines are, which produce some of the lowest cost power about, then promote fugging ugly and expensive nuclear power plants as a solution.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
3. Climate science is actually quite developed, the models are very skilful, very accurate and definitely underestimating climate change rather than over estimating, based on the real data. Side by side comparison of the modelling of real measurements against the predictive models shows a high degree of correlation. This demonstrates a high level of skill in the algorithms of the predictive modelling. Very high and getting better.

That is really interesting. Can you provide some backup on that? Every model I have seen is wildly inaccurate and overestimating as afar as both correlation and forecasting go. Or is that just personal opinion?

I'm happy to show some graphs on how bad they are but i'll let you go first to show how they are undercooked.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
You appear to be big on evidence and experimentation. Good on you.

Now, can you provide some evidence to support your theory that the present warming we're seeing is largely or wholly natural variability so we can put this tedious exchange to bed?

Now, why would I want to do that? It's not my theory and not my point.

I think what you meant to say was "Hey, you were right, I was wrong. You might even have a point there."

Childish attention seeking

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
You appear to be big on evidence and experimentation. Good on you.

Now, can you provide some evidence to support your theory that the present warming we're seeing is largely or wholly natural variability so we can put this tedious exchange to bed?

Now, why would I want to do that? It's not my theory and not my point.

I think what you meant to say was "Hey, you were right, I was wrong. You might even have a point there."

What is your point then? You appear to disagree with the validity of the science that points almost wholly towards human activity. You muddy the water by pretending that there's a significant opposition to the rigorous science with actual evidence. You further muddy the water by bringing up nuclear power, when electricity generation by burning fossil fuels is only part of the problem and is the only sector in Australia currently cutting emissions.

It is amusing hearing you whinge about how ugly wind turbines are, which produce some of the lowest cost power about, then promote fugging ugly and expensive nuclear power plants as a solution.

that's a verbal bashing!!!!!Ouch!!!

Nuclear power is beautiful

And co2 free, get onboard the nuclear train, everyone wins

With nuclear power we could stay a first world democratic industrialised nation....... Oh wait, I see your problem with nuclear now

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
What is your point then? You appear to disagree with the validity of the science that points almost wholly towards human activity. You muddy the water by pretending that there's a significant opposition to the rigorous science with actual evidence. You further muddy the water by bringing up nuclear power, when electricity generation by burning fossil fuels is only part of the problem and is the only sector in Australia currently cutting emissions.

It is amusing hearing you whinge about how ugly wind turbines are, which produce some of the lowest cost power about, then promote fugging ugly and expensive nuclear power plants as a solution.

I was pretty clear about what my point was -- several times
No, I didn't.
No, I'm not, that's not even close to my point
I caveated that comment ... and power generation *is* the largest contributor of CO2. Wouldn't it be nice to knock that out of the park?
www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/28/industries-sectors-carbon-emissions

You don't seem to understand the finer points here, which is indirectly my point
Windmills make what, average 2 to 3 MW each -- when the wind is blowing -- and need to be in areas that are windy ... usually spoiling the scenic views.
Versus the 1,000 MW-plus a nuclear power station can consistently generate, and the plant itself can be tucked out of sight and need be no more ugly than a hospital.

You do the math.

Select to expand quote

log man said..
Childish attention seeking

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..That is really interesting. Can you provide some backup on that? Every model I have seen is wildly inaccurate and overestimating as afar as both correlation and forecasting go. Or is that just personal opinion?

You probably ask these questions and hold your opinions because you're looking at analysis from people who are part of AGW denier groups affiliated with fossil fuel companies instead of listening to credible and unbiased sources.

I on the other hand don't claim to hold an opinion other than to rely on mainstream scientific endeavour.

For instance, prominent AGW denier pin up boy Patrick J Michaels famously predicted in 1999 that the earth would undergo quote "a statistically significant cooling period from 1998 to 2008". We now know how wrong he was.

Michaels also famously predicted in 2013 that we would go through another 25 years without any significant warming. Given that 2016 was the warmest year on record, it's fair to say that he's been proven a total fraud. For a full list of Michaels and other AGW denier bogus hysterical claims see here:

skepticalscience.com/patrick-michaels-history-getting-climate-wrong.html

"Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that the global mean temperature has increased in recent decades. [...] He contends that the changes will be minor, not catastrophic, and may even be beneficial."
That's the kind of person you label a hysterical denier and you're puzzled by the pushback? That's an actual climate research scientist and you're dismissing his work because he's skeptical ... not very scientific.

skepticalscience is Cook and crew. I'd find another source if I were you.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..
"Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that the global mean temperature has increased in recent decades. [...] He contends that the changes will be minor, not catastrophic, and may even be beneficial."
That's the kind of person you label a hysterical denier and you're puzzled by the pushback? That's an actual climate research scientist and you're dismissing his work because he's skeptical ... not very scientific.

skepticalscience is Cook and crew. I'd find another source if I were you.

How many times does he have to be proven wrong before you stop listening?

Rational Wiki absolutely rips Michaels to shreds. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

"He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."
John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

^ Saying its on but it probably doesn't matter so roll with it, is a bit like acknowledging an approaching bush fire and saying it's only grass that's burning so don't bother to call the fire brigade.

If you don't know what the damage will be it's irresponsible to assume it's harmless but it's not irresponsible to assume it's dangerous.

Nuclear as others have said looks like a good interim solution as long as they're fail safe. And I understand the newest versions are just that.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
Nuclear power is beautiful

And co2 free, get onboard the nuclear train, everyone wins

With nuclear power we could stay a first world democratic industrialised nation....... Oh wait, I see your problem with nuclear now

edition.cnn.com/2019/11/30/europe/germany-nuclear-waste-grm-intl/index.html


I will not be surprised once one day our PM will offer to take all nuclear waste from all over the world to Australia ( for free). As usual we do with all our resources ( sending all gas, iron and coal royalty free). One may say that is nothing wrong with that approach. Money are not wasted but just going to over pockets that need them more or could do better use of those billions of dollars. For example to fund weapons to keep world at peace by sustaing wars.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Kamikuza said..
"Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that the global mean temperature has increased in recent decades. [...] He contends that the changes will be minor, not catastrophic, and may even be beneficial."
That's the kind of person you label a hysterical denier and you're puzzled by the pushback? That's an actual climate research scientist and you're dismissing his work because he's skeptical ... not very scientific.

skepticalscience is Cook and crew. I'd find another source if I were you.

How many times does he have to be proven wrong before you stop listening?

Rational Wiki absolutely rips Michaels to shreds. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

"He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."
John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

I never knew he was until you introduced him, so I listen to him about as much as you listen to me

My point again is that despite however much someone agrees with the party line, if they're not in total agreement then the scratches of "denier!" begins.

And rather than addressing the science it becomes a game of pin the association on the bad guy. Like, why even bring this guy up?

You raise a good point though - how many times does someone or something have to be wrong before we put them aside?

RationalWiki LOL just no.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

TonyAbbott said..
Nuclear power is beautiful

And co2 free, get onboard the nuclear train, everyone wins

With nuclear power we could stay a first world democratic industrialised nation....... Oh wait, I see your problem with nuclear now

edition.cnn.com/2019/11/30/europe/germany-nuclear-waste-grm-intl/index.html


I will not be surprised once one day our PM will offer to take all nuclear waste from all over the world to Australia ( for free). As usual we do with all our resources ( sending all gas, iron and coal royalty free). One may say that is nothing wrong with that approach. Money are not wasted but just going to over pockets that need them more or could do better use of those billions of dollars. For example to fund weapons to keep world at peace by sustaing wars.

Great head line but I can guarantee it's short on facts and misrepresenting the deadliness off the waste.

I've outsourced my comment

I think making fun of climate deniers should be in the olympics.

Select to expand quote

log man said..
I think

Go on, get away with you ... never!

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-02/bureau-of-meteorology-declares-spring-2019-the-driest-on-record/11755848

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-02/bureau-of-meteorology-declares-spring-2019-the-driest-on-record/11755848

that's alarming.

Hendrix was onto it


I have lived here before
The days of ice
And of course this is why
I'm so concerned
And I come back to find
The stars misplaced
And the smell of a world
That is burned
A smell of a world
That is burned.

Yeah well, maybe, hmm...
Maybe it's just a... Change of climate
Hmm, hmm...
Well I can dig it
I can dig it baby
I just want to see.

Yes!! The climate is changing, thank goodness.

Select to expand quote

log man said..
I think

There are psychiaritsts and drugs that can stop you doing that.

thebestschools.org/magazine/whats-happened-skepticism-science/
Get a grip people.