Select to expand quote

quikdrawMcgraw said..Um you get banned from this site all the time because you think you know everything

what's this guy talking about sounds a tiddly biddly tad unhinged

For those interested in a reasoned discussion on the latest science of climate change.

Illustrates some of the complexities that probably preclude non-scientists from useful commentary.

podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/sean-carrolls-mindscape-science-society-philosophy/id1406534739

Select to expand quote

cammd said..>>You did indicate your support to get rid of opposing views and democracy with that little waterfall analogy, it seemed pretty clear that you were in favour of a totalitarian authority to "save" the world

If I remember correctly I said it was a hard call, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to make that call.
And that wasn't about censoring opposing views it was about overriding democracy.

As a hypothetical question.
If you have absolute knowledge that democracy is incapable of saving imminent catastrophe, what do you do?

I think 99% of the time it would be impossible to do anything, you'd just have to do the best you can to ride out the problem.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

azymuth said..

TonyAbbott said..Then I showed evidence that cyclone activity and intensity is decreasing, which he tried to write-off 50 years of BoM cyclone data with the short term climate drivers of el Nino and el Nina. Wrong. So then he gave up and wanted me censored instead. As if that will change the data.

If you have evidence and a unique hypothesis that will disprove the current science, why don't you write a scientific paper and submit it to a respected journal for peer review, i.o.w. become a scientist.

Anything else is just posturing.

I think it's more like attention seeking behaviour. Tone posted an article about the number of cyclones........because it supported his argument......but.......didn't show the explanation of those numbers because the explanation didn't support his narrative. To me that's either plain deceptive or delusional.
So why do it, knowing that you're either wrong(and you know it).....or wrong.

Incorrect

I posted the BoM link, and the explanation states clearly that cyclones decreasing in intensity and frequency.

Maybe you can tells us why? Despite the consensus that said we will get more.

Or do you believe the BoM's data is wrong

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..Incorrect. I posted the BoM link, and the explanation states clearly that cyclones decreasing in intensity and frequency. Maybe you can tells us why? Despite the consensus that said we will get more.

Cherry pickin' may work for climate change deniers but in the real world Da BOM also says this:

"AUSTRALIA HAS BEEN WARMING AND WILL WARM SUBSTANTIALLY DURING THE 21ST CENTURY

Australian average surface air temperature has increased by 0.9 deg.C since 1910, and increasing greenhouse gases have contributed to this rise (Section 4.2.1). Climate models are able to reproduce the observed warming over the 20th century (Sections 5.2, 5.3, 7.1.1). In recent decades anomalously warm months have occurred more often than anomalously cold months (Section 4.2.1).

"Many heat-related records were broken in the summer of 2012-13 and in the year of 2013, including Australia's hottest day, week, month and year averaged across Australia (Section 4.2.1).

"Extreme summer temperatures during 2012- 13 were unlikely to have been caused by natural variability alone, and such temperatures are now five times more likely due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Section 4.2.1). "

Also in general, this graph paints the whole picture.
www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/media/ccia/2.1.6/cms_page_media/168/CCIA_2015_NRM_TechnicalReport_WEB.pdf

Yeah but is Palpatine really the father of Anakin Skywalker?

Bears

Oh...I thought we were bringing up irrelevant things

Select to expand quote

groucho said..

quikdrawMcgraw said..Um you get banned from this site all the time because you think you know everything

what's this guy talking about sounds a tiddly biddly tad unhinged

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott... I posted the BoM link, and the explanation states clearly that cyclones decreasing in intensity and frequency.
Maybe you can tells us why? Despite the consensus that said we will get more.
Or do you believe the BoM's data is wrong

You cherry-picked - below is the full extract from BOM;


You ignored or didn't bother to read;

More high-intensity storms
Heavier rainfall and flooding
Increases in storm surges



CC is too complicated for you (and me) - leave it to meteorologists, climate and atmospheric scientists.



Tropical Cyclone Trends


Tropical cyclones in the Australian region are influenced by a number of factors, and in particular variations in the El Ni?o - Southern Oscillation. In general, more tropical cyclones cross the coast during La Ni?a years, and fewer during El Ni?o years.
Analysis of historical tropical cyclone data has limitations due to a number of changes in observing practices and technology that have occurred over time. With new and improved meteorological satellites our ability to detect tropical cyclones has improved, as has our ability to differentiate tropical cyclones from other tropical weather systems such as monsoon depressions, which in the past may have been incorrectly named as tropical cyclones.
A particularly important change occurred in the late 1970s when regular satellite images became first available from geostationary satellites above the Earth's equator.
The time series of analysed tropical cyclone activity in the Australian region (south of the equator; 90-160?E) show that the total number of cyclones appears to have decreased. However, there was a change to the definition for tropical cyclones in 1978 which led to some systems which would previously have been classified as tropical cyclones instead being considered sub-tropical systems. This contributes somewhat to the apparent decline in total numbers.
The number of severe tropical cyclones (minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa) is dominated by variability with periods of lower and higher frequencies of occurrence. There is less confidence in the earlier intensity data with continuous satellite coverage commencing in 1979

Potential changes in tropical cyclone occurrence and intensity (a measure of wind speed alone rather than the amount of precipitation or coastal flooding) are discussed in CSIRO and BoM (2015: see Sections 4.2.7 and 7.3.2). There is substantial evidence from theory and model experiments that the large-scale environment in which tropical cyclones form and evolve is changing as a result of global warming. Projected changes in the number and intensity of tropical cyclones are subject to the sources of uncertainty inherent in climate change projections. There remains uncertainty in the future change in tropical cyclone frequency (the number of tropical cyclones in a given period) projected by climate models, with a general tendency for models to project fewer tropical cyclones in the Australia region in the future climate and a greater proportion of the high intensity storms (stronger wind speeds and heavier rainfall).

Wind speed is only one aspect of tropical cyclones and their impacts.
The amount of heavy precipitation from all weather systems, including tropical cyclones, is likely to increase. Increased rainfall intensity from tropical cyclones is pertinent to Australia, since these storms have historically been associated with major flooding.

Additionally, increases in storm surges and extreme sea-levels are very likely to occur in association with tropical cyclones under future climate change. This change is independent of changes in tropical cyclone intensity and is directly related to increases in global mean sea-level due to global warming.Projected changes in tropical cyclone characteristics are inherently tied to changes in large-scale patterns such as the El Ni?o - Southern Oscillation, changes in sea surface temperature and changes in deep convection. As global climate models improve, their simulation of tropical cyclones is expected to improve, thus providing greater certainty in projections of tropical cyclone changes in a warmer world.

So... fewer cyclones

Cool, I'm glad we agree

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
So... fewer cyclones
Cool, I'm glad we agree

Well done - you've solved climate change.
We're going to see mass street protests of jobless climate scientists.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
So... fewer cyclones

Cool, I'm glad we agree

HMMM, not sure on that. That chart is comparing apples and oranges, there's no data on how many of the earlier "cyclones" are now called storms. Or didn't you read the rest of the report?

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
So... fewer cyclones
Cool, I'm glad we agree

I'm dumbfounded by the ignorance of unqualified punters who think they can credibly criticize climate change science - usually by cherry-picking a statement or chart from a website or some other punters blog.

I can only assume they've never seen a research article so have no understanding of the subtleties and complexities of the science.

Below is the Abstract of a paper Michael Mann co-published in October 2018 relating to changes in extreme weather events - and a link to the full paper below that.

Abstract: Projected changes in persistent extreme summer weather events: The role of quasi-resonant amplification
Persistent episodes of extreme weather in the Northern Hemisphere summer have been associated with high-amplitude quasi-stationary atmospheric Rossby waves, with zonal wave numbers 6 to 8 resulting from the phenomenon of quasi-resonant amplification (QRA).
A fingerprint for the occurrence of QRA can be defined in terms of the zonally averaged surface temperature field.
Examining state-of-the-art [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5)] climate model projections, we find that QRA events are likely to increase by ~50% this century under business-as-usual carbon emissions, but there is considerable variation among climate models. Some predict a near tripling of QRA events by the end of the century, while others predict a potential decrease. Models with amplified Arctic warming yield the most pronounced increase in QRA events.
The projections are strongly dependent on assumptions regarding the nature of changes in radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic aerosols over the next century. One implication of our findings is that a reduction in midlatitude aerosol loading could actually lead to Arctic de-amplification this century, ameliorating potential increases in persistent extreme weather events.


Full research article here;
advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat3272


Curious who will come up with a criticism?

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

TonyAbbott said..
So... fewer cyclones
Cool, I'm glad we agree

I'm dumbfounded by the ignorance of unqualified punters who think they can credibly criticize climate change science - usually by cherry-picking a statement or chart from a website or some other punters blog.

I can only assume they've never seen a research article so have no understanding of the subtleties and complexities of the science.

Below is the Abstract of a paper Michael Mann co-published in October 2018 relating to changes in extreme weather events - and a link to the full paper below that.

Abstract: Projected changes in persistent extreme summer weather events: The role of quasi-resonant amplification
Persistent episodes of extreme weather in the Northern Hemisphere summer have been associated with high-amplitude quasi-stationary atmospheric Rossby waves, with zonal wave numbers 6 to 8 resulting from the phenomenon of quasi-resonant amplification (QRA).
A fingerprint for the occurrence of QRA can be defined in terms of the zonally averaged surface temperature field.
Examining state-of-the-art [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5)] climate model projections, we find that QRA events are likely to increase by ~50% this century under business-as-usual carbon emissions, but there is considerable variation among climate models. Some predict a near tripling of QRA events by the end of the century, while others predict a potential decrease. Models with amplified Arctic warming yield the most pronounced increase in QRA events.
The projections are strongly dependent on assumptions regarding the nature of changes in radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic aerosols over the next century. One implication of our findings is that a reduction in midlatitude aerosol loading could actually lead to Arctic de-amplification this century, ameliorating potential increases in persistent extreme weather events.


Full paper - hope you love maths
advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat3272


Curious who will come up with a criticism?

I'll go... State-of-the-art OK, nerd jokes aside, did you read the abstract? Do you know what it said?

"there is considerable variation among climate models. Some predict a near tripling of QRA events by the end of the century, while others predict a potential decrease."

Wow!!! Some models show an increase in QRA events, some show decreases! We don't know how many models were run and the distribution of the outcomes from the abstract or your snippet.

Followed by: "Models with amplified Arctic warming yield the most pronounced increase in QRA events."

Wow!!! Pump arctic warming in a model and get increase in QRA events and confirmation bias. Yay!!! Confirmation bias...

"The projections are strongly dependent on assumptions regarding the nature of changes in radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic aerosols over the next century. "

Wow!!! Model outcomes are dependent on inputs... dependent on "nature of changes in radiative forcing"... so, the reported outcomes, which aren't definitely stated (largely coz they aren't known!!!), are based on assumptions around the way sunlight interacts with aerosols.

"One implication of our findings is that a reduction in midlatitude aerosol loading could actually lead to Arctic de-amplification this century, ameliorating potential increases in persistent extreme weather events".

Wow!!! The model shows less aerosols at mid-latitude could lead to ameliorating (improve/make better) potential extreme weather events.

Perhaps you can explain the subtleties and complexities that you understood, that I missed...

Qualification: PW is an earth scientist who has published several peer-reviewed papers... PW is a CC believer and also believes that there may be more than some misunderstanding of what this abstract says on behalf of the poster.

Select to expand quote

Pugwash said..

azymuth said..

TonyAbbott said..
So... fewer cyclones
Cool, I'm glad we agree

I'm dumbfounded by the ignorance of unqualified punters who think they can credibly criticize climate change science - usually by cherry-picking a statement or chart from a website or some other punters blog.

I can only assume they've never seen a research article so have no understanding of the subtleties and complexities of the science.

Below is the Abstract of a paper Michael Mann co-published in October 2018 relating to changes in extreme weather events - and a link to the full paper below that.

Abstract: Projected changes in persistent extreme summer weather events: The role of quasi-resonant amplification
Persistent episodes of extreme weather in the Northern Hemisphere summer have been associated with high-amplitude quasi-stationary atmospheric Rossby waves, with zonal wave numbers 6 to 8 resulting from the phenomenon of quasi-resonant amplification (QRA).
A fingerprint for the occurrence of QRA can be defined in terms of the zonally averaged surface temperature field.
Examining state-of-the-art [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5)] climate model projections, we find that QRA events are likely to increase by ~50% this century under business-as-usual carbon emissions, but there is considerable variation among climate models. Some predict a near tripling of QRA events by the end of the century, while others predict a potential decrease. Models with amplified Arctic warming yield the most pronounced increase in QRA events.
The projections are strongly dependent on assumptions regarding the nature of changes in radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic aerosols over the next century. One implication of our findings is that a reduction in midlatitude aerosol loading could actually lead to Arctic de-amplification this century, ameliorating potential increases in persistent extreme weather events.


Full paper - hope you love maths
advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat3272


Curious who will come up with a criticism?

I'll go... State-of-the-art OK, nerd jokes aside, did you read the abstract? Do you know what it said?

"there is considerable variation among climate models. Some predict a near tripling of QRA events by the end of the century, while others predict a potential decrease."

Wow!!! Some models show an increase in QRA events, some show decreases! We don't know how many models were run and the distribution of the outcomes from the abstract or your snippet.

Followed by: "Models with amplified Arctic warming yield the most pronounced increase in QRA events."

Wow!!! Pump arctic warming in a model and get increase in QRA events and confirmation bias. Yay!!! Confirmation bias...

"The projections are strongly dependent on assumptions regarding the nature of changes in radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic aerosols over the next century. "

Wow!!! Model outcomes are dependent on inputs... dependent on "nature of changes in radiative forcing"... so, the reported outcomes, which aren't definitely stated (largely coz they aren't known!!!), are based on assumptions around the way sunlight interacts with aerosols.

"One implication of our findings is that a reduction in midlatitude aerosol loading could actually lead to Arctic de-amplification this century, ameliorating potential increases in persistent extreme weather events".

Wow!!! The model shows less aerosols at mid-latitude could lead to ameliorating (improve/make better) potential extreme weather events.

Perhaps you can explain the subtleties and complexities that you understood, that I missed...

Qualification: PW is an earth scientist who has published several peer-reviewed papers... PW is a CC believer and also believes that there may be more than some misunderstanding of what this abstract says on behalf of the poster.

Wow - you were in a big hurry to show how smart you are!!

Did you read the full research article in the link in 30 minutes?
Surely you didn't come up with your sarcastic analysis just by reading the abstract?

I don't understand the research article and I suspect that nobody other than scientists working in the field will either, certainly not to any depth that allows worthwhile critique.
That's the point of me posting it - to show how complex climate science is.

I don't criticize what I don't understand - I fully accept the scientific consensus

Select to expand quote

Pugwash said..

azymuth said..

TonyAbbott said..
So... fewer cyclones
Cool, I'm glad we agree

I'm dumbfounded by the ignorance of unqualified punters who think they can credibly criticize climate change science - usually by cherry-picking a statement or chart from a website or some other punters blog.

I can only assume they've never seen a research article so have no understanding of the subtleties and complexities of the science.

Below is the Abstract of a paper Michael Mann co-published in October 2018 relating to changes in extreme weather events - and a link to the full paper below that.

Abstract: Projected changes in persistent extreme summer weather events: The role of quasi-resonant amplification
Persistent episodes of extreme weather in the Northern Hemisphere summer have been associated with high-amplitude quasi-stationary atmospheric Rossby waves, with zonal wave numbers 6 to 8 resulting from the phenomenon of quasi-resonant amplification (QRA).
A fingerprint for the occurrence of QRA can be defined in terms of the zonally averaged surface temperature field.
Examining state-of-the-art [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5)] climate model projections, we find that QRA events are likely to increase by ~50% this century under business-as-usual carbon emissions, but there is considerable variation among climate models. Some predict a near tripling of QRA events by the end of the century, while others predict a potential decrease. Models with amplified Arctic warming yield the most pronounced increase in QRA events.
The projections are strongly dependent on assumptions regarding the nature of changes in radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic aerosols over the next century. One implication of our findings is that a reduction in midlatitude aerosol loading could actually lead to Arctic de-amplification this century, ameliorating potential increases in persistent extreme weather events.


Full paper - hope you love maths
advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat3272


Curious who will come up with a criticism?

I'll go... State-of-the-art OK, nerd jokes aside, did you read the abstract? Do you know what it said?

"there is considerable variation among climate models. Some predict a near tripling of QRA events by the end of the century, while others predict a potential decrease."

Wow!!! Some models show an increase in QRA events, some show decreases! We don't know how many models were run and the distribution of the outcomes from the abstract or your snippet.

Followed by: "Models with amplified Arctic warming yield the most pronounced increase in QRA events."

Wow!!! Pump arctic warming in a model and get increase in QRA events and confirmation bias. Yay!!! Confirmation bias...

"The projections are strongly dependent on assumptions regarding the nature of changes in radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic aerosols over the next century. "

Wow!!! Model outcomes are dependent on inputs... dependent on "nature of changes in radiative forcing"... so, the reported outcomes, which aren't definitely stated (largely coz they aren't known!!!), are based on assumptions around the way sunlight interacts with aerosols.

"One implication of our findings is that a reduction in midlatitude aerosol loading could actually lead to Arctic de-amplification this century, ameliorating potential increases in persistent extreme weather events".

Wow!!! The model shows less aerosols at mid-latitude could lead to ameliorating (improve/make better) potential extreme weather events.

Perhaps you can explain the subtleties and complexities that you understood, that I missed...

Qualification: PW is an earth scientist who has published several peer-reviewed papers... PW is a CC believer and also believes that there may be more than some misunderstanding of what this abstract says on behalf of the poster.

This does make sense to me now. And it comes down to ego. PW is a scientist who believes in GW, but instead of agreeing with what's going on, and supporting the cause, PW decides to be obstinate and prove that he's the undisputed heavyweight champ. Why would anyone do
that ? PW cares more about PW's ego than an issue.....any issue.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
So... fewer cyclones

Cool, I'm glad we agree

no, if you look back to the ice age they have increased.

Pugwash has to be a Nazi!

I reckon Pugwash and Azymuth are actually on the same page.....

Azymuth is saying the actual full science is mind boggling so realistically the average joe cannot comment accurately on it, and

Pugwash understands a lot of the subject matter but doesn't buy into the hysteria because a huge proportion of the science is based on assuptions...

And Loggy is just being a meanie again....

Am I close????

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

Pugwash said..

azymuth said..

TonyAbbott said..
So... fewer cyclones
Cool, I'm glad we agree

I'm dumbfounded by the ignorance of unqualified punters who think they can credibly criticize climate change science - usually by cherry-picking a statement or chart from a website or some other punters blog.

I can only assume they've never seen a research article so have no understanding of the subtleties and complexities of the science.

Below is the Abstract of a paper Michael Mann co-published in October 2018 relating to changes in extreme weather events - and a link to the full paper below that.

Abstract: Projected changes in persistent extreme summer weather events: The role of quasi-resonant amplification
Persistent episodes of extreme weather in the Northern Hemisphere summer have been associated with high-amplitude quasi-stationary atmospheric Rossby waves, with zonal wave numbers 6 to 8 resulting from the phenomenon of quasi-resonant amplification (QRA).
A fingerprint for the occurrence of QRA can be defined in terms of the zonally averaged surface temperature field.
Examining state-of-the-art [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5)] climate model projections, we find that QRA events are likely to increase by ~50% this century under business-as-usual carbon emissions, but there is considerable variation among climate models. Some predict a near tripling of QRA events by the end of the century, while others predict a potential decrease. Models with amplified Arctic warming yield the most pronounced increase in QRA events.
The projections are strongly dependent on assumptions regarding the nature of changes in radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic aerosols over the next century. One implication of our findings is that a reduction in midlatitude aerosol loading could actually lead to Arctic de-amplification this century, ameliorating potential increases in persistent extreme weather events.


Full paper - hope you love maths
advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat3272


Curious who will come up with a criticism?

I'll go... State-of-the-art OK, nerd jokes aside, did you read the abstract? Do you know what it said?

"there is considerable variation among climate models. Some predict a near tripling of QRA events by the end of the century, while others predict a potential decrease."

Wow!!! Some models show an increase in QRA events, some show decreases! We don't know how many models were run and the distribution of the outcomes from the abstract or your snippet.

Followed by: "Models with amplified Arctic warming yield the most pronounced increase in QRA events."

Wow!!! Pump arctic warming in a model and get increase in QRA events and confirmation bias. Yay!!! Confirmation bias...

"The projections are strongly dependent on assumptions regarding the nature of changes in radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic aerosols over the next century. "

Wow!!! Model outcomes are dependent on inputs... dependent on "nature of changes in radiative forcing"... so, the reported outcomes, which aren't definitely stated (largely coz they aren't known!!!), are based on assumptions around the way sunlight interacts with aerosols.

"One implication of our findings is that a reduction in midlatitude aerosol loading could actually lead to Arctic de-amplification this century, ameliorating potential increases in persistent extreme weather events".

Wow!!! The model shows less aerosols at mid-latitude could lead to ameliorating (improve/make better) potential extreme weather events.

Perhaps you can explain the subtleties and complexities that you understood, that I missed...

Qualification: PW is an earth scientist who has published several peer-reviewed papers... PW is a CC believer and also believes that there may be more than some misunderstanding of what this abstract says on behalf of the poster.

Wow - you were in a big hurry to show how smart you are!!

Did you read the full research article in the link in 30 minutes?
Surely you didn't come up with your sarcastic analysis just by reading the abstract?

I don't understand the research article and I suspect that nobody other than scientists working in the field will either, certainly not to any depth that allows worthwhile critique.
That's the point of me posting it - to show how complex climate science is.

I don't criticize what I don't understand - I fully accept the scientific consensus

I would agree the climate is very complex, so complex that its is not fully understood by anyone, which then means the science was not settled 30 years ago as many claim and its not settled now.

Shutting down and discounting possibilities that don't suit you political agenda doesn't help anyone's understanding. Thats why "theconversation" has acted incorrectly.

Select to expand quote

Shutting down and discounting possibilities that don't suit you political agenda doesn't help anyone's understanding.

and you don't accept the overwhelming evidence because you think that the lefties are planning a new world order of high taxes

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Shutting down and discounting possibilities that don't suit you political agenda doesn't help anyone's understanding.

and you don't accept the overwhelming evidence because you think that the lefties are planning a new world order of high taxes

Mate you are the Leftard Taliban, I didn't say that, if i did I would have mentioned it was a genderless new world order.

all I said was keep your mind open.

"This concern with the basic condition of freedom - the absence of physical constraint - is unquestionably necessary, but is not all that is necessary. It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison and yet not free - to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national State, or of some private interest within the nation, want him to think, feel and act."

Aldous Huxley - Brave New World

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
"This concern with the basic condition of freedom - the absence of physical constraint - is unquestionably necessary, but is not all that is necessary. It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison and yet not free - to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national State, or of some private interest within the nation, want him to think, feel and act."

Aldous Huxley - Brave New World

" I see nothing, I hear nothing, I KNOW NOTHING" - Sgt Schulz, Hogan's Heroes

Select to expand quote

Emeboy said..
I reckon Pugwash and Azymuth are actually on the same page.....

Azymuth is saying the actual full science is mind boggling so realistically the average joe cannot comment accurately on it, and

Pugwash understands a lot of the subject matter but doesn't buy into the hysteria because a huge proportion of the science is based on assuptions...

And Loggy is just being a meanie again....

Am I close????

Yeah, I reckon you are close... I'm concerned, but not hysterical.

I didn't think much of that abstract as it replaced big content with big words...

I believe strongly in the KISS principle; keep it simple scientist!!!

Climate science is friggin complex, with so many systems operating together... politics and campaigners on both sides need to get the hell out and let the scientists do science...

Decrepit sees no increase in sea level but he imagines in his own mind it has risen due to his belief in their data or 'science'.

He is unable to understand seemingly how to measure where any potential three inch rise in the sea and where it would take the water to.

He does not want to find out that the water will cover a lot more of the beach - then he will have to admit he has been duped.

You still haven't explained what you want me to do with the ruler.
Please do!

You're just making stuff up again Pete, you've no idea where my mind's at.

Sorry,i am unable to make it any clearer.

Are you in favour of the mainstream media censoring contrary opinion to the Govts science narrative on man made climate change - yes or no?

Are you also in agreement with them censoring opposing opinion on 911 and other controversial topics that are currently not allowed any air time?

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
Sorry,i am unable to make it any clearer.

That's what I thought, you haven't a clue what to do with a ruler to test sealevel rise, but you make out it's so easy.

Peter, I'm in favour of media being allowed to run their own agenda, as long as it conforms to regulatory requirements.

Telling media what they can and can't do is an other form of censorship. It's necessary to stop incitement to violence, terrorism etc. You'd need an incredibly good reason to subvert the rules of the land.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
Sorry,i am unable to make it any clearer.

Are you in favour of the mainstream media censoring contrary opinion to the Govts science narrative on man made climate change - yes or no?

Are you also in agreement with them censoring opposing opinion on 911 and other controversial topics that are currently not allowed any air time?

please decrepid, please say yes........ and just end it.......he'll **** off then.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

petermac33 said..
Sorry,i am unable to make it any clearer.

That's what I thought, you haven't a clue what to do with a ruler to test sealevel rise, but you make out it's so easy.

Peter, I'm in favour of media being allowed to run their own agenda, as long as it conforms to regulatory requirements.

Telling media what they can and can't do is an other form of censorship. It's necessary to stop incitement to violence, terrorism etc. You'd need an incredibly good reason to subvert the rules of the land.

There is no ruler test... just people who can't comprehend geometry.