Discussion:
This man is a climate change skeptic...
(too old to reply)
bringyagrogalong
2009-12-08 06:02:52 UTC
Permalink
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d

Says it all really, doesn't it?
fasgnadh
2009-12-08 08:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAA!

The Youtube video asks "What's Tory Abbott thinking about?"
and he's licking his lips and staring at Hhoward's crotch! 8^o
Post by bringyagrogalong
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Yeah, Just another Howard Era tory cocksucker! B^D

--------



"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009

"In the context of his leadership this is curious as
Mr Abbott seems to have spun 180 degrees in his estimation
of human influenced climate change in as little as a
few hours / votes."

and he just keeps spinning;

"It could indeed help the outcome of the Copenhagen
climate change talks if Australia agreed in advance
not only to a carbon emission target but also a
mechanism to deliver it."

- T Abbott The Australian October 2009

"Far from being an arrogant assertion of his own views,
Turnbull’s assessment that the government’s emissions
trading scheme should ultimately be allowed to pass is his
attempt to save the Coalition from a fight it can’t win."

- T Abbott The Australian July 2009

Asked about his claim that 'Climate Change is Crap" he said

"I probably should apologise now for my errors in the past,
make a clean breast of it, and ask the public to judge me
from this point."

T Abbott 1 December 2009

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHA!

But he keeps making new mistakes as he constantly backflips to
tell people what they want to hear at that moment!
He has had more positions on Climate Change than the Karma Sutra!

"$50b bill for Abbott carbon plan"
- SMH December 7, 2009

"THE shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, has estimated the cost of
Tony Abbott's climate change policy at over $50 billion."

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

Tony Abbott's position on climate change IS CRAP! B^]



"Tony Abbott is a conviction politician" B^D

Tony Abbott on the likely outcome of Copenhagen:

"I think all we will get is more talk" Oh The Irony! B^D

This is Mr "Climate Change is Crap" whose party spent TEN YEARS
pretending they were serious about Climate Change, proposing
an ETS at the last election, when they are Climate Change deniers.

Today he's declaring he will have a "full strong and credible policy
on the Climate Change he doesn't believe in" because they know
"Climate Change is Crap" is a politically untenable stance,
They have to keep LYING to the Australian people, PRETENDING they
take Climate Change seriously..and now Joe Hockey has revealed that
Tony Abbott's Climate Change policy will cost $50 Billion!!!! 8^o

"$50b bill for Abbott carbon plan"
- SMH December 7, 2009

In a tense confidential exchange in shadow cabinet two weeks ago, before
Mr Abbott seized the Liberal leadership, Mr Hockey challenged his
colleague's position on climate change.

According to people present during the spirited debate, Mr Hockey spoke
strongly in favour of the Liberal policy at that time - pushed by the
then leader, Malcolm Turnbull - to support the Government's amended
emissions trading scheme.

Mr Abbott was one of six in the 20-member shadow cabinet who spoke out
against the policy.

Mr Hockey challenged him by asking: "What's the alternative?"

Mr Abbott cited a list of carbon abatement measures - other than an
emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax - that Mr Turnbull had
mentioned in a speech on January 24.

Mr Hockey, exasperated, shot back: "That's $50 billion plus!"

That's a lot of taxpayer dollars to be wasted on a
policy the Lieberals simply don't believe in and will
be wasted by hypocrites who negotiated even MORE
rorts for the Big Polluters into the ETS, and then
reneged on the deal they struck with the government.

You can't trust the tory hypocrites, they sacked their
only 'Committment' politician as leader because he
actually IMPLEMENTED THEIR POLICY!!!!
B J Foster
2009-12-09 19:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by fasgnadh
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAA!
Faghdagh's primal reaction noted.
Post by fasgnadh
The Youtube video asks "What's Tory Abbott thinking about?"
and he's licking his lips and staring at Hhoward's crotch! 8^o
Krudd the Dud
2009-12-08 10:13:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:02:52 -0800 (PST), bringyagrogalong
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.

You really are a fool!


And to put matters right, Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic; he
is however opposed to the Dudd's useless tax. As are most Australians!

Hope this helps!

(You leftoids are really threatened by Abbott! LOL!)
bringyagrogalong
2009-12-08 10:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krudd the Dud
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
You really are a fool!
And to put matters right, Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic
"not a climate change skeptic" ?

I suggest that you read (sorry how silly of me) get someone to read
fasgnadh's devastating piece on what a back-flipping political harlot
the Mad Monk is.

But deep down, Minchin's puppet is a AGW skeptic, make no mistake.
Krudd the Dud
2009-12-09 09:26:35 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 02:46:31 -0800 (PST), bringyagrogalong
Post by bringyagrogalong
Post by Krudd the Dud
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
You really are a fool!
And to put matters right, Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic
"not a climate change skeptic" ?
I suggest that you read (sorry how silly of me) get someone to read
fasgnadh's devastating piece on what a back-flipping political harlot
the Mad Monk is.
But deep down, Minchin's puppet is a AGW skeptic, make no mistake.
You have made the mistake, shit stain.
fasgnadh
2009-12-08 11:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krudd the Dud
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:02:52 -0800 (PST), bringyagrogalong
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D



"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D

It just depends if he's Flipping or Flopping! B^D

"In the context of his leadership this is curious as
Mr Abbott seems to have spun 180 degrees in his estimation
of human influenced climate change in as little as a
few hours / votes."

and he just keeps spinning;

"It could indeed help the outcome of the Copenhagen
climate change talks if Australia agreed in advance
not only to a carbon emission target but also a
mechanism to deliver it."

- T Abbott The Australian October 2009

"Far from being an arrogant assertion of his own views,
Turnbull’s assessment that the government’s emissions
trading scheme should ultimately be allowed to pass is his
attempt to save the Coalition from a fight it can’t win."

- T Abbott The Australian July 2009

Asked about his claim that 'Climate Change is Crap" he said

"I probably should apologise now for my errors in the past,
make a clean breast of it, and ask the public to judge me
from this point."

T Abbott 1 December 2009

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHA!

But he keeps making new mistakes as he constantly backflips to
tell people what they want to hear at that moment!
He has had more positions on Climate Change than the Karma Sutra!

"$50b bill for Abbott carbon plan"
- SMH December 7, 2009

"THE shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, has estimated the cost of
Tony Abbott's climate change policy at over $50 billion."

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

Tony Abbott's position on climate change IS CRAP! B^]



"Tony Abbott is a conviction politician" B^D

Tony Abbott on the likely outcome of Copenhagen:

"I think all we will get is more talk" Oh The Irony! B^D

This is Mr "Climate Change is Crap" whose party spent TEN YEARS
pretending they were serious about Climate Change, proposing
an ETS at the last election, when they are Climate Change deniers.

Today he's declaring he will have a "full strong and credible policy
on the Climate Change he doesn't believe in" because they know
"Climate Change is Crap" is a politically untenable stance,
They have to keep LYING to the Australian people, PRETENDING they
take Climate Change seriously..and now Joe Hockey has revealed that
Tony Abbott's Climate Change policy will cost $50 Billion!!!! 8^o

"$50b bill for Abbott carbon plan"
- SMH December 7, 2009

In a tense confidential exchange in shadow cabinet two weeks ago, before
Mr Abbott seized the Liberal leadership, Mr Hockey challenged his
colleague's position on climate change.

According to people present during the spirited debate, Mr Hockey spoke
strongly in favour of the Liberal policy at that time - pushed by the
then leader, Malcolm Turnbull - to support the Government's amended
emissions trading scheme.

Mr Abbott was one of six in the 20-member shadow cabinet who spoke out
against the policy.

Mr Hockey challenged him by asking: "What's the alternative?"

Mr Abbott cited a list of carbon abatement measures - other than an
emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax - that Mr Turnbull had
mentioned in a speech on January 24.

Mr Hockey, exasperated, shot back: "That's $50 billion plus!"

That's a lot of taxpayer dollars to be wasted on a
policy the Lieberals simply don't believe in and will
be wasted by hypocrites who negotiated even MORE
rorts for the Big Polluters into the ETS, and then
reneged on the deal they struck with the government.

You can't trust the tory hypocrites, they sacked their
only 'Committment' politician as leader because he
actually IMPLEMENTED THEIR POLICY!!!!
Addinall
2009-12-08 15:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krudd the Dud
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:02:52 -0800 (PST), bringyagrogalong
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify!   B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm?   B^D
"Climate Change is Crap"  - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    B^D  Not a climate change sceptic!?  B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.

http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural

Here's a couple of interesting datasets. I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria. The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations. Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple. Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
history, and
are not a capital city. I wanted to look at data that was largely
unaffected from
UHI effect seen in the major cities. You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general. Do these data sets
look like
'global' warming is running away? I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.

I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I. The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory. I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect. Not by
him. The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).

However good 'climate science' is purported to be, a lot of
'corrections' and assumptions are required to make that
lot look like a catastrophe.
Cheery Pip,
Marky.
Addinall
2009-12-08 15:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by Krudd the Dud
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:02:52 -0800 (PST), bringyagrogalong
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify!   B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm?   B^D
"Climate Change is Crap"  - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    B^D  Not a climate change sceptic!?  B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.
http://www.addinall.net/antarcticahttp://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural
Here's a couple of interesting datasets.  I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria.  The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations.  Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple.  Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
history, and
are not a capital city.  I wanted to look at data that was largely
unaffected from
UHI effect seen in the major cities.  You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general.  Do these data sets
look like
'global' warming is running away?  I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I.  The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory.  I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect.  Not by
him.  The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).
However good 'climate science' is purported to be, a lot of
'corrections' and assumptions are required to make that
lot look like a catastrophe.
Cheery Pip,
Marky.
And yes, a very small portion of the Antarctic, and curiously bits of
Tasmania
have seen some quite amazing warming. May I suggest other causative
factors
than CO2?

"Analysis of 6 November 2001 satellite imagery. A routine check of
Australia's maritime boundaries in the Southern Ocean by Geoscience
Australia showed that the McDonald Islands had doubled in size, and it
appears that the separate islands of McDonald Island and Flat Island
are now one. Geoscience Australia's Bill Hirst was comparing an aerial
photograph of the McDonald Islands taken on 11 March 1980, with
satellite imagery from Landsat 7 EGM data acquired on 6 November 2001,
when he noticed that the islands had changed shape (figure 6). The
islands earlier combined area of 1.13 km2 is now thought to have
changed to 2.45 km2. Some features have disappeared.


The senior surveyor onshore during a 6-day visit in 1980 was
Geoscience Australia's John Manning, who named many features of the
McDonald Islands. He noted that "Thelander Point doesn't appear to be
an appropriate name now, Williams Bay seems to be filled in, and The
Needle may be gone . . . Windward Point is no longer a point because
there are about 400 m of new land in front of it. The tumultuous bay I
called Cauldron is now full of rock, and Flat Island is probably
joined to McDonald Island by a shingle comprising gravel and pumice."
Other new features appear to be a volcanic hill and a spit to the E of
the island similar to one on Heard Island. Macaroni Hill was once the
highest point.

Observations in late November 2002. Experienced observers noted
changes to the McDonald Island group in late November 2002 from on
board the Akademic Shokalskiy, which was visiting the Heard Island
region on a voyage organized by the New Zealand-based tour company
Heritage Expeditions. A comparison of old and new photographs of the
area shows that the N part of the island is much higher than before,
and 75% of the land area that is now there may be completely new.
During the last five years Australian national program vessels that
have observed the McDonald group have reported seeing steam issuing
from vents at various locations."

I have no reason to question these observations. I have seen the data
myself. What is NOT discussed in media pap, is that parts of
Antarctica, and the new island that is Tasmania, is showing
significant and geologically new (less than 20,000 ybp) volcanic
activity.


"06/2005 (BGVN 30:06) Satellite infrared data suggests a new
unwitnessed eruption

The following report comes from Matt Patrick of the HIGP Thermal
Alerts Team. Two night-time ASTER images (Band 10, 8.3 microns, at 90
m pixel size) of McDonald Island show activity centered on the NW
shore of the island. The December 2002 image was examined some months
ago, but it was not determined whether the long-wave infrared (IR)
anomaly was genuine, since it was relatively low intensity and there
was no anomaly in the shortwave IR. The most recent ASTER image (12
July 2005) shows a somewhat larger long-wave IR anomaly, but more
importantly, there are five pixels in the shortwave IR (Band 9, 2.4
microns; not shown) which are saturated, indicating this is a
significantly hot target. Based upon McDonald's typical activity, the
anomaly probably reflects low-level effusive activity.

The first and only MODVOLC alert pixel showed up in November 2004
(BGVN 29:12). These ASTER images show that recent activity is centered
around the NW flank of the island, very close to shore. Comparing the
July 2005 image with the December 2002 image, there might be an
indication of the shoreline growing westward, but it is hard to tell
for sure with this resolution (90 meters). The location of this
activity is generally consistent with recent BGVN reports: in 1999
steaming was observed on the N-NE part of the island (BGVN 24:01), and
a recent Landsat ETM image indicated that island construction over the
last two decades has expanded the northern portion of the volcano
(BGVN 26:02 and 27:12)."

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0304-011&volpage=var

Can one imagine that 'new' islands being formed in the area, and
consistant sighting of 'steaming' and venting fissures, MAY just have
raised the detected temperatures in the small part of West Antarctica
that we are talking about? Wiley has been to Herd Island often
enough. We can ask if these reports are true.

TarTar,
Marky.
fasgnadh
2009-12-09 07:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by Addinall
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Krudd the Dud
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:02:52 -0800 (PST), bringyagrogalong
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D
"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.
No, I heard him asked on Lateline if he had consulted any
scientists when forming his views. The answer was no.

He hasn't been getting ANY data! HE is conflicted and unreliable,
he's had more positions on Climate change than the Lieberals have had
new leaders, and it's nothing to do with evidence for anthropogenic
Climate Change, which for me remains an open question.

I have ripped into him for claiming "Climate Change is a Crap, (when
it's always changing - warming, cooling or switching between the two),
then claiming he will have a no-cost Magic Pudding to fix the problem he
doesn't believe exists, and then have Joe Hockey tell us Abbott's
Emmission Reduction plans (including the mythical Clean Coal) will
cost $50 Billion.

I will wait for details, but whatever they propose, I can't believe
them, because they offered an ETS at the last election! 8^o

As for the underlying science... I am somewhat persuaded by Prof Plimer,
but I would still like global reductions in use of finite fossil
fuel resources, mostly because I like pharmaceuticals and I think
our age, (where the USA has used up all it's accessible hydrocarbons
in a century, and is now joined by China and India in devouring the
rest) will be seen as barbarians for burning it to push fat-arsed
coronary patients around in 2 tonne SUV's.

The Human impact on Forests, Fisheries and Waterways is enough to
convince me that humans and rabbits share an ability to consume
their environments to a point of desolation and death.

So I would like a price signal to foster more solar, electric vehicles,
nuclear, hydrogen, geothermal etc.

The Chinese committment to reduce carbon emissions/ unit production may
be more related to choking on the air in their urban areas.. but they
are on the same page.

As for your datasets, BOM analyse their full national dataset and
come to different conclusions..

http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/200603/nicholls_hres.pdf

"Mean maximum temperature has increased over most
of Australia since 1950"

..In fact, reading this they highlight regional variations
which may explain the subset you report on.

Either way, as I said, my interest in ENCOURAGING the market
to develop alternative, preferably renewable, energy sources, is
because left to it's own devices, the Easter Island price
for timber only started to bite when the final trees were
cut down, and I see the same headlong rush downhill from peak
oil. Hence I have tended to avoid the Anthropogenic Climate
Change arguments, as there are too many rabid nutjobs on both
sides and the science, as always, seems less clear than the
dogmatists claim it to be.
Post by Addinall
Post by Addinall
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural
Here's a couple of interesting datasets. I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria. The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations. Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple. Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
history, and
are not a capital city. I wanted to look at data that was largely
unaffected from
UHI effect seen in the major cities. You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general. Do these data sets
look like
'global' warming is running away? I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I. The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory. I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect. Not by
him. The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).
However good 'climate science' is purported to be, a lot of
'corrections' and assumptions are required to make that
lot look like a catastrophe.
Cheery Pip,
Marky.
G'day Mark.

Catastrophe? Don't think I mentioned one! B^]

I've been doing Abbot over for political hypocrisy,
not his policy on Climate Change, whatever it is a 5:57 pm
on Wednesday 9/12/2009. ;-)

http://www.addinall.net/about.html

I tried clicking on Bio Warfare and Bioinformatics
but my clearance didn't have enough zeros after the
dollar sign, I guess. ;-)

I thought that at lest the Ethical Food would be public domain,
but if the Church can make a quid out of it for 2000 years I
guess it's ok for you to give them some competition.

Glad to see the Blog gave me a 404 error.. anyone with a blog
has too much fucking time on their hands!!!! B^]

take care, mate.

I'm off to be Santa at a Carols night, and then to the palliative
care hospital to see how mums going.
Post by Addinall
And yes, a very small portion of the Antarctic, and curiously bits of
Tasmania
have seen some quite amazing warming. May I suggest other causative
factors
than CO2?
"Analysis of 6 November 2001 satellite imagery. A routine check of
Australia's maritime boundaries in the Southern Ocean by Geoscience
Australia showed that the McDonald Islands had doubled in size, and it
appears that the separate islands of McDonald Island and Flat Island
are now one. Geoscience Australia's Bill Hirst was comparing an aerial
photograph of the McDonald Islands taken on 11 March 1980, with
satellite imagery from Landsat 7 EGM data acquired on 6 November 2001,
when he noticed that the islands had changed shape (figure 6). The
islands earlier combined area of 1.13 km2 is now thought to have
changed to 2.45 km2. Some features have disappeared.
The senior surveyor onshore during a 6-day visit in 1980 was
Geoscience Australia's John Manning, who named many features of the
McDonald Islands. He noted that "Thelander Point doesn't appear to be
an appropriate name now, Williams Bay seems to be filled in, and The
Needle may be gone . . . Windward Point is no longer a point because
there are about 400 m of new land in front of it. The tumultuous bay I
called Cauldron is now full of rock, and Flat Island is probably
joined to McDonald Island by a shingle comprising gravel and pumice."
Other new features appear to be a volcanic hill and a spit to the E of
the island similar to one on Heard Island. Macaroni Hill was once the
highest point.
Observations in late November 2002. Experienced observers noted
changes to the McDonald Island group in late November 2002 from on
board the Akademic Shokalskiy, which was visiting the Heard Island
region on a voyage organized by the New Zealand-based tour company
Heritage Expeditions. A comparison of old and new photographs of the
area shows that the N part of the island is much higher than before,
and 75% of the land area that is now there may be completely new.
During the last five years Australian national program vessels that
have observed the McDonald group have reported seeing steam issuing
from vents at various locations."
I have no reason to question these observations. I have seen the data
myself. What is NOT discussed in media pap, is that parts of
Antarctica, and the new island that is Tasmania, is showing
significant and geologically new (less than 20,000 ybp) volcanic
activity.
"06/2005 (BGVN 30:06) Satellite infrared data suggests a new
unwitnessed eruption
The following report comes from Matt Patrick of the HIGP Thermal
Alerts Team. Two night-time ASTER images (Band 10, 8.3 microns, at 90
m pixel size) of McDonald Island show activity centered on the NW
shore of the island. The December 2002 image was examined some months
ago, but it was not determined whether the long-wave infrared (IR)
anomaly was genuine, since it was relatively low intensity and there
was no anomaly in the shortwave IR. The most recent ASTER image (12
July 2005) shows a somewhat larger long-wave IR anomaly, but more
importantly, there are five pixels in the shortwave IR (Band 9, 2.4
microns; not shown) which are saturated, indicating this is a
significantly hot target. Based upon McDonald's typical activity, the
anomaly probably reflects low-level effusive activity.
The first and only MODVOLC alert pixel showed up in November 2004
(BGVN 29:12). These ASTER images show that recent activity is centered
around the NW flank of the island, very close to shore. Comparing the
July 2005 image with the December 2002 image, there might be an
indication of the shoreline growing westward, but it is hard to tell
for sure with this resolution (90 meters). The location of this
activity is generally consistent with recent BGVN reports: in 1999
steaming was observed on the N-NE part of the island (BGVN 24:01), and
a recent Landsat ETM image indicated that island construction over the
last two decades has expanded the northern portion of the volcano
(BGVN 26:02 and 27:12)."
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0304-011&volpage=var
Can one imagine that 'new' islands being formed in the area, and
consistant sighting of 'steaming' and venting fissures, MAY just have
raised the detected temperatures in the small part of West Antarctica
that we are talking about? Wiley has been to Herd Island often
enough. We can ask if these reports are true.
TarTar,
Marky.
Post by Addinall
Post by fasgnadh
It just depends if he's Flipping or Flopping! B^D
"In the context of his leadership this is curious as
Mr Abbott seems to have spun 180 degrees in his estimation
of human influenced climate change in as little as a
few hours / votes."
and he just keeps spinning;
"It could indeed help the outcome of the Copenhagen
climate change talks if Australia agreed in advance
not only to a carbon emission target but also a
mechanism to deliver it."
- T Abbott The Australian October 2009
"Far from being an arrogant assertion of his own views,
Turnbull’s assessment that the government’s emissions
trading scheme should ultimately be allowed to pass is his
attempt to save the Coalition from a fight it can’t win."
- T Abbott The Australian July 2009
Asked about his claim that 'Climate Change is Crap" he said
"I probably should apologise now for my errors in the past,
make a clean breast of it, and ask the public to judge me
from this point."
T Abbott 1 December 2009
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHA!
But he keeps making new mistakes as he constantly backflips to
tell people what they want to hear at that moment!
He has had more positions on Climate Change than the Karma Sutra!
"$50b bill for Abbott carbon plan"
- SMH December 7, 2009
"THE shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, has estimated the cost of
Tony Abbott's climate change policy at over $50 billion."
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
Tony Abbott's position on climate change IS CRAP! B^]
"Tony Abbott is a conviction politician" B^D
"I think all we will get is more talk" Oh The Irony! B^D
This is Mr "Climate Change is Crap" whose party spent TEN YEARS
pretending they were serious about Climate Change, proposing
an ETS at the last election, when they are Climate Change deniers.
Today he's declaring he will have a "full strong and credible policy
on the Climate Change he doesn't believe in" because they know
"Climate Change is Crap" is a politically untenable stance,
They have to keep LYING to the Australian people, PRETENDING they
take Climate Change seriously..and now Joe Hockey has revealed that
Tony Abbott's Climate Change policy will cost $50 Billion!!!! 8^o
"$50b bill for Abbott carbon plan"
- SMH December 7, 2009
In a tense confidential exchange in shadow cabinet two weeks ago, before
Mr Abbott seized the Liberal leadership, Mr Hockey challenged his
colleague's position on climate change.
According to people present during the spirited debate, Mr Hockey spoke
strongly in favour of the Liberal policy at that time - pushed by the
then leader, Malcolm Turnbull - to support the Government's amended
emissions trading scheme.
Mr Abbott was one of six in the 20-member shadow cabinet who spoke out
against the policy.
Mr Hockey challenged him by asking: "What's the alternative?"
Mr Abbott cited a list of carbon abatement measures - other than an
emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax - that Mr Turnbull had
mentioned in a speech on January 24.
Mr Hockey, exasperated, shot back: "That's $50 billion plus!"
That's a lot of taxpayer dollars to be wasted on a
policy the Lieberals simply don't believe in and will
be wasted by hypocrites who negotiated even MORE
rorts for the Big Polluters into the ETS, and then
reneged on the deal they struck with the government.
You can't trust the tory hypocrites, they sacked their
only 'Committment' politician as leader because he
actually IMPLEMENTED THEIR POLICY!!!!
Addinall
2009-12-09 20:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Addinall
Post by Addinall
Post by Krudd the Dud
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:02:52 -0800 (PST), bringyagrogalong
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify!   B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm?   B^D
"Climate Change is Crap"  - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    B^D  Not a climate change sceptic!?  B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.
No, I heard him asked on Lateline if he had consulted any
scientists when forming his views.  The answer was no.
He hasn't been getting ANY data!   HE is conflicted and unreliable,
he's had more positions on Climate change than the Lieberals have had
new leaders, and it's nothing to do with evidence for anthropogenic
Climate Change, which for me remains an open question.
There is no doubt about Anthropogenic climate change. Observable
facts.
Chop down continental size forests and you will change the
environment.
Throw rubbish into the sae, ditto. Build huge dams will certainly
effect the
climate. Turn rivers around, throw soil into the air. All work
wonders.
Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, would seem not, by
observation, to have much effect on the 'climate' one way or the
other.
Post by fasgnadh
I have ripped into him for claiming "Climate Change is a Crap, (when
it's always changing - warming, cooling or switching between the two),
then claiming he will have a no-cost Magic Pudding to fix the problem he
doesn't believe exists, and then have Joe Hockey tell us Abbott's
Emmission Reduction plans (including the mythical Clean Coal) will
cost $50 Billion.
I will wait for details, but whatever they propose, I can't believe
them, because they offered an ETS at the last election!   8^o
Although the Mad Monk has never been one of my favourites, I am
not going to bag him for changing his stance, especially if some
newer information could be dribbling in to the information vacumn
that is Parliment house.
Post by fasgnadh
As for the underlying science... I am somewhat persuaded by Prof Plimer,
but I would still like global reductions in use of finite fossil
fuel resources, mostly because I like pharmaceuticals and I think
our age, (where the USA has used up all it's accessible hydrocarbons
in a century, and is now joined by China and India in devouring the
rest) will be seen as barbarians for burning it to push fat-arsed
coronary patients around in 2 tonne  SUV's.
I agree. I think coal is far to valuable to boil water. Why bother
when we
have a power source good for 200,000 years in the shape of Thorium and
Uranium deposits?
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Post by fasgnadh
The Human impact on Forests, Fisheries and Waterways is enough to
convince me that humans and rabbits share an ability to consume
their environments to a point of desolation and death.
So I would like a price signal to foster more solar, electric vehicles,
nuclear, hydrogen, geothermal etc.
Solar is pretty much a waste of time, unless it serves Farms like
your's
and Wiley's. We MIGHT get some show from Solar Thermal, but
the German and Spanish efforts have been pretty unspectacular.
Wind power is just a mistake, in all senses.
Post by fasgnadh
The Chinese committment to reduce carbon emissions/ unit production may
be more related to choking on the air in their urban areas..  but they
are on the same page.
I am pretty sure the Chinese are not going to discover ecologically
sound principles for a little while yet.
Post by fasgnadh
As for your datasets, BOM analyse their full national dataset and
come to different conclusions..
http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/200603/nicholls_hres.pdf
"Mean maximum temperature has increased over most
of Australia since 1950"
Perhaps. I was going to do the 50+ year data sets next.
However, one of the major claims from the AGW crowd
has been that some fictional 'global climate' has increased
by about 0.9C over the last century has it not been?
So that the implied warming could be bent to fit a correlation
with some observed data, and a whole lot of made up data.
Post by fasgnadh
..In fact, reading this they highlight regional variations
   which may explain the subset you report on.
Given the claim I refer to, I selected ALL BoM data as long it;
1. could show 100 years of data collection, and,
2. it was not one of our capital cities.

This left me with some twenty odd sites to examine.
I used BoM data, uncorrected, and I used BoM software
to carry out the analysis. Given the results, when used to
test the hypothesis, I would say the the hypothesis need
to find a dustbin.

"Formal statistical approaches have been used in
many detection and attribution studies in recent years,
especially on global scales (see IAHDAG 2005). Most
such studies rely on the optimal fingerprinting technique.
Optimal fingerprinting is generalised multivariate
regression adapted to the detection of climate
change and the attribution of change to externally
forced climate change signals. The regression model
has the form y = Xa + u, where vector y is a filtered
version of the observed record, matrix X contains the
estimated response patterns to the external forcings
(signals) that are under investigation, a is a vector of
scaling factors that adjusts the amplitudes of those patterns,
and u represents internal climate variability.
The matrix X typically contains signals that are
estimated with a climate model. Because models simulate
natural internal variability as well as the
response to specified anomalous external forcing, the
simulated climate signals are typically estimated by
averaging across an ensemble of simulations. The
vector a accounts for possible errors in the amplitude
of the external forcing and the amplitude of the climate
model’s response by scaling the signal patterns
to best match the observations."

Someone needs to tell that boy to take a breath now and again!
Sounds impressive hey? We had a word for that when I was
at the Australian Bureau of Statistics. "Cheating". This is
an example of what 'climate science' has become. If the data
does not match the hypothesis, manipulate the data.
I really don't mind people playing fast and loose with methodology,
as long as it dozen drain the odd TRILLION dollars away from
more worthwhile projects, like potable water, affordable power,
health and education. When all of those things start getting ignored
so that a bunch of very average research staff, and the odd hundred
thousand scruffy hippies can get warm glowing feelings I get upset.
Post by fasgnadh
Either way, as I said, my interest in ENCOURAGING the market
to develop alternative, preferably renewable, energy sources, is
because left to it's own devices, the Easter Island price
for timber only started to bite when the final trees were
cut down, and I see the same headlong rush downhill from peak
oil.   Hence I have tended to avoid the Anthropogenic Climate
Change arguments, as there are too many rabid nutjobs on both
sides and the science, as always, seems less clear than the
dogmatists claim it to be.
Post by Addinall
Post by Addinall
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
 >>http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural
Post by Addinall
Post by Addinall
Here's a couple of interesting datasets.  I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria.  The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations.  Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple.  Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
history, and
are not a capital city.  I wanted to look at data that was largely
unaffected from
UHI effect seen in the major cities.  You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general.  Do these data sets
look like
'global' warming is running away?  I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I.  The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory.  I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect.  Not by
him.  The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).
However good 'climate science' is purported to be, a lot of
'corrections' and assumptions are required to make that
lot look like a catastrophe.
Cheery Pip,
Marky.
G'day Mark.
Catastrophe?   Don't think I mentioned one!  B^]
I've been doing Abbot over for political hypocrisy,
not his policy on Climate Change, whatever it is a 5:57 pm
on Wednesday 9/12/2009.     ;-)
http://www.addinall.net/about.html
I tried clicking on Bio Warfare and Bioinformatics
but my clearance didn't have enough zeros after the
dollar sign, I guess.    ;-)
I thought that at lest the Ethical Food would be public domain,
but if the Church can make a quid out of it for 2000 years I
guess it's ok for you to give them some competition.
Glad to see the Blog gave me a 404 error..  anyone with a blog
has too much fucking time on their hands!!!!   B^]
Who has time to look after one's own web pages. 0600
and I just finished working on a client's in preparation for
today's design considerations! Sleep? What's that!
Post by fasgnadh
take care, mate.
I'm off to be Santa at a Carols night, and then to the palliative
care hospital to see how mums going.
Goodo. Drive safely. :-)
All the best. My Mum decided to die at Christmas. Not
very good planning.

Cheers,
Marky.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Addinall
And yes, a very small portion of the Antarctic, and curiously bits of
Tasmania
have seen some quite amazing warming.  May I suggest other causative
factors
than CO2?
"Analysis of 6 November 2001 satellite imagery. A routine check of
Australia's maritime boundaries in the Southern Ocean by Geoscience
Australia showed that the McDonald Islands had doubled in size, and it
appears that the separate islands of McDonald Island and Flat Island
are now one. Geoscience Australia's Bill Hirst was comparing an aerial
photograph of the McDonald Islands taken on 11 March 1980, with
satellite imagery from Landsat 7 EGM data acquired on 6 November 2001,
when he noticed that the islands had changed shape (figure 6). The
islands earlier combined area of 1.13 km2 is now thought to have
changed to 2.45 km2. Some features have disappeared.
The senior surveyor onshore during a 6-day visit in 1980 was
Geoscience Australia's John Manning, who named many features of the
McDonald Islands. He noted that "Thelander Point doesn't appear to be
an appropriate name now, Williams Bay seems to be filled in, and The
Needle may be gone . . . Windward Point is no longer a point because
there are about 400 m of new land in front of it. The tumultuous bay I
called Cauldron is now full of rock, and Flat Island is probably
joined to McDonald Island by a shingle comprising gravel and pumice."
Other new features appear to be a volcanic hill and a spit to the E of
the island similar to one on Heard Island. Macaroni Hill was once the
highest point.
Observations in late November 2002. Experienced observers noted
changes to the McDonald Island group in late November 2002 from on
board the Akademic Shokalskiy, which was visiting the Heard Island
region on a voyage organized by the New Zealand-based tour company
Heritage Expeditions. A comparison of old and new photographs of the
area shows that the N part of the island is much higher than before,
and 75% of the land area that is now there may be completely new.
During the last five years Australian national program vessels that
have observed the McDonald group have reported seeing steam issuing
from vents at various locations."
I have no reason to question these observations.  I have seen the data
myself.  What is NOT discussed in media pap, is that parts of
Antarctica, and the new island that is Tasmania, is showing
significant and geologically new (less than 20,000 ybp) volcanic
activity.
"06/2005 (BGVN 30:06) Satellite infrared data suggests a new
unwitnessed eruption
The following report comes from Matt Patrick of the HIGP Thermal
Alerts Team. Two night-time ASTER images (Band 10, 8.3 microns, at 90
m pixel size) of McDonald Island show activity centered on the NW
shore of the island. The December 2002 image was examined some months
ago, but it was not determined whether the long-wave infrared (IR)
anomaly was genuine, since it was relatively low intensity and there
was no anomaly in the shortwave IR. The most recent ASTER image (12
July 2005) shows a somewhat larger long-wave IR anomaly, but more
importantly, there are five pixels in the shortwave IR (Band 9, 2.4
microns; not shown) which are saturated, indicating this is a
significantly hot target. Based upon McDonald's typical activity, the
anomaly probably reflects low-level effusive activity.
The first and only MODVOLC alert pixel showed up in November 2004
(BGVN 29:12). These ASTER images show that recent activity is centered
around the NW flank of the island, very close to shore. Comparing the
July 2005 image with the December 2002 image, there might be an
indication of the shoreline growing westward, but it is hard to tell
for sure with this resolution (90 meters). The location of this
activity is generally consistent with recent BGVN reports: in 1999
steaming was observed on the N-NE part of the island (BGVN 24:01), and
a recent Landsat ETM image indicated that island construction over the
last two decades has expanded the northern portion of the volcano
(BGVN 26:02 and 27:12)."
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0304-011&volpage=var
Can one imagine that 'new' islands being formed in the area, and
consistant sighting of 'steaming' and venting fissures, MAY just have
raised the detected temperatures in the small part of West Antarctica
that we are
...
read more »
Tomasso
2009-12-08 21:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by Krudd the Dud
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:02:52 -0800 (PST), bringyagrogalong
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D
"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural
Here's a couple of interesting datasets. I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria. The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations. Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple. Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
history, and
are not a capital city. I wanted to look at data that was largely
unaffected from
UHI effect seen in the major cities. You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general. Do these data sets
look like
'global' warming is running away? I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I. The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory. I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect. Not by
him. The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).
Not wrong.
Post by Addinall
However good 'climate science' is purported to be, a lot of
'corrections' and assumptions are required to make that
lot look like a catastrophe.
Cheery Pip,
Marky.
bringyagrogalong
2009-12-09 06:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tomasso
Post by Addinall
Post by Krudd the Dud
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D
"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural
Here's a couple of interesting datasets.  I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria.  The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations.  Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple.  Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
history, and
are not a capital city.  I wanted to look at data that was largely
unaffected from
UHI effect seen in the major cities.  You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general.  Do these data sets
look like
'global' warming is running away?  I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I.  The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory.  I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect.  Not by
him.  The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).
Not wrong.
Christ! What have we got here?

Tweedledum and Tweedledumber ROFL

So you pair of idiots believe that your "research" is right while
research by the world's scientists is wrong.

Ever thought to wonder why the world's governments are attending the
Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference?

Perhaps you should forward your bullshit so they can call the whole
thing off. ROFL
fasgnadh
2009-12-09 10:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by bringyagrogalong
Post by Tomasso
Post by Addinall
Post by Krudd the Dud
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D
"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural
Here's a couple of interesting datasets. I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria. The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations. Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple. Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
history, and
are not a capital city. I wanted to look at data that was largely
unaffected from
UHI effect seen in the major cities. You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general. Do these data sets
look like
'global' warming is running away? I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I. The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory. I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect. Not by
him. The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).
Not wrong.
Christ! What have we got here?
A couple of thinking sceptics, quite distinct from
Minchin, Abbott, Barnaby Joyce, and the Usenet morons
CRUD, and Dr Sir John Winsome Coward.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Tweedledum and Tweedledumber ROFL
Oh, I don't think so.

Both pretty bright fellas.

So is Prof Ian Plimer who makes a good case for historic
climate change, (Part of the reason why Abbott's stupidty
"Climate Change is Crap" is such crap!) based on the geological
record, not 'climate 'models' (which have to be orders of
magnitude more complex than the ones which model an economy..
and we all saw how fucking accurate they are when the G.E.C. burst
on us unannounced.

The thing I hate most about this argument is the fixed positions
and the dominance in the debate of total thickies..

I have lost friends on the greenie save the earth side for
saying that I found Al Gore unimpressive, and now the current stupidity
is to dismiss all the science supporting global warming because
of some emails from one reseacher. VERY LITTLE OF THIS ARGUMENT
IS GOOD SCIENCE. And in a choice between Kevin Rudd and Al Gore
on once side and Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt on the other I prefer
to slit my own throat and bleed to death.
Post by bringyagrogalong
So you pair of idiots believe that your "research" is right while
research by the world's scientists is wrong.
Well, I had a look at the datasets. I think that's how science is done.

At least consider the evidence.

It wouldn't be the first time one man was right and the entire
community of the learned had their heads stuck up their arses, Galileao.

I ripped into Abbott because he's a fucking thug and a hypocrital,
back flipping opportunist on climate change. Not becausue I think
the global warming argument is settled.

I thing the sea temps are critical, and the Goddard/NASA sattelite
data does indicate some slight warming.

It's the *models* which suggest panic, and that's not enough to convince
me that the matter is an open and shut case! .. but it is enough for me
to think we should be doing everything sensible to prepare for climate
change, even if it's driven by solar activity.

Then there is the question of the anthropogenic causes, how significant
are they, what proportion of atmospheric CO2 is produced by humans .. 4%?

But I think it essential that we develop GLOBAL responses to a wide
range of issues, so, the more Copenhagens, the better we will get at it.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Ever thought to wonder why the world's governments are attending the
Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference?
Becasue when each of their respective governments (including the
previous Howard one) asked their chief scientific advisors they all said
follow the precautionary principle... the indications are that slow
warming is occurring, we could be contributing to it, but there
is no certainty. Thus they are all trying to make some changes to
the way energy is produced, without fucking their economies. Tough job.

And they can't be CERTAIN their assessment of the threat is right!

Which is why sceptics are fine by me.. they just have to convince
enough people through the evidence.. first the scientific community,
then the general public. My mind is still open.

Till then it's slight speed ahead.. the most rational course.

But as with the Ozone depletion, united action can solve complex
problems. It's a new paradigm for humanity.. global governance
is in it's infancy and faces considerable hostility.

The alternative to contention for resources (War over oil and water) is
co-operative solutions, and the mere agreement between China and the USA
on united action on climate change is easily worth a spare
Trillion, let alone the Billions proposed. I expect to see China being
the new driver of Solar panel and electric vehicle technology..
hopefully integrated mass transport and less cars, which are already
dysfunctional in large urban environments. All of these benefits are
incidental to the 'Reduce emissions' debate, but they represent my
interest.. I will be happy if Climate change concerns are the driver..
it seems fear is all that can motivate some people...

Meanwhile the tories are squabbling over the crumbs of defeat.

There are larger issues than who wins the next election is Australia.

Our footprint on the planet is too heavy.

We have already fished the richest ocean fishery, the Grand Banks, to
death, endless growth is destroying forests and rivers and sending
countless species extinct.. there are too many of us consuming too
many resources and we will need another four planets if the Chinese and
Iindians all adopt our middle class lifestyle of endless fucking
consumption.

I for one am prepared to do without multiple TVs cars iPods and plastic
shit if we can get a river or two to run clean and free.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Perhaps you should forward your bullshit so they can call the whole
thing off. ROFL
What Mark presented isn't Bullshit.. it's BOM and polar region data.

The BOM's own analysis of the entire national dataset is however,
different from their partial dataset:

"Mean maximum temperature has increased over most
of Australia since 1950"

http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/200603/nicholls_hres.pdf


I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl
insults at each other over the data, and the conclusions.
--
alt.atheism FAQ:

http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/


http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source




"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest


"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest


"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest

Loading Image...


Loading Image...
bringyagrogalong
2009-12-09 11:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Tomasso
Post by Addinall
Post by Krudd the Dud
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D
"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural
Here's a couple of interesting datasets.  I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria.  The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations.  Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple.  Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
history, and
are not a capital city.  I wanted to look at data that was largely
unaffected from
UHI effect seen in the major cities.  You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general.  Do these data sets
look like
'global' warming is running away?  I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I.  The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory.  I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect.  Not by
him.  The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).
Not wrong.
Christ!  What have we got here?
A couple of thinking sceptics, quite distinct from
Minchin, Abbott, Barnaby Joyce, and the Usenet morons
CRUD, and Dr Sir John Winsome Coward.
Tweedledum and Tweedledumber  ROFL
Oh, I don't think so.
Both pretty bright fellas.
So is Prof Ian Plimer who makes a good case for historic
climate change, (Part of the reason why Abbott's stupidty
"Climate Change is Crap" is such crap!) based on the geological
record, not 'climate 'models' (which have to be orders of
magnitude more complex than the ones which model an economy..
and we all saw how fucking accurate they are when the G.E.C. burst
on us unannounced.
The thing I hate most about this argument is the fixed positions
and the dominance in the debate of total thickies..
I have lost friends on the greenie save the earth side for
saying that I found Al Gore unimpressive, and now the current stupidity
is to dismiss all the science supporting global warming because
of some emails from one reseacher.  VERY LITTLE OF THIS ARGUMENT
IS GOOD SCIENCE.  And in a choice between Kevin Rudd and Al Gore
on once side and Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt on the other I prefer
to slit my own throat and bleed to death.
So you pair of idiots believe that your "research" is right while
research by the world's scientists is wrong.
Well, I had a look at the datasets.  I think that's how science is done.
At least consider the evidence.
It wouldn't be the first time one man was right and the entire
community of the learned had their heads stuck up their arses, Galileao.
I ripped into Abbott because he's a fucking thug and a hypocrital,
back flipping opportunist on climate change.  Not becausue I think
the global warming argument is settled.
I thing the sea temps are critical, and the Goddard/NASA sattelite
data does indicate some slight warming.
It's the *models* which suggest panic, and that's not enough to convince
me that the matter is an open and shut case! ..  but it is enough for me
to think we should be doing everything sensible to prepare for climate
change, even if it's driven by solar activity.
Then there is the question of the anthropogenic causes, how significant
are they, what proportion of atmospheric CO2 is produced by humans .. 4%?
But I think it essential that we develop GLOBAL responses to a wide
range of issues, so, the more Copenhagens, the better we will get at it.
 > Ever thought to wonder why the world's governments are attending the
 > Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference?
Becasue when each of their respective governments (including the
previous Howard one) asked their chief scientific advisors they all said
follow the precautionary principle...  the indications are that slow
warming is occurring, we could be contributing to it, but there
is no certainty.   Thus they are all trying to make some changes to
the way energy is produced, without fucking their economies. Tough job.
And they can't be CERTAIN their assessment of the threat is right!
Which is why sceptics are fine by me.. they just have to convince
enough people through the evidence..  first the scientific community,
then the general public.  My mind is still open.
Till then it's slight speed ahead..  the most rational course.
But as with the Ozone depletion, united action can solve complex
problems.  It's a new paradigm for humanity.. global governance
is in it's infancy and faces considerable hostility.
The alternative to contention for resources (War over oil and water) is
co-operative solutions, and the mere agreement between China and the USA
on united action on climate change is easily worth a spare
Trillion, let alone the Billions proposed. I expect to see China being
the new driver of Solar panel and electric vehicle technology..
hopefully integrated mass transport and less cars, which are already
dysfunctional in large urban environments.   All of these benefits are
incidental to the 'Reduce emissions' debate, but they represent my
interest..  I will be happy if Climate change concerns are the driver..
it seems fear is all that can motivate some people...
Meanwhile the tories are squabbling over the crumbs of defeat.
There are larger issues than who wins the next election is Australia.
Our footprint on the planet is too heavy.
We have already fished the richest ocean fishery, the Grand Banks, to
death, endless growth is destroying forests and rivers and sending
countless species extinct..  there are too many of us consuming too
many resources and we will need another four planets if the Chinese and
Iindians all adopt our middle class lifestyle of endless fucking
consumption.
I for one am prepared to do without multiple TVs cars iPods and plastic
shit if we can get a river or two to run clean and free.
Perhaps you should forward your bullshit so they can call the whole
thing off.  ROFL
What Mark presented isn't Bullshit..  it's BOM and polar region data.
The BOM's own analysis of the entire national dataset is however,
"Mean maximum temperature has increased over most
of Australia since 1950"
http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/200603/nicholls_hres.pdf
I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl
insults at each other over the data, and the conclusions.
--
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl...
  "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
      -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
  "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
      - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
  "How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
      - Lenin
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
   http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-fa...
Is it just me, or...is fasgnadh, of all people, deferring to Addinall?

hmmm! Let me read his post again.

Yep! It's a grovel alright!

It's almost like he's desperately seeking approval. He appears to
think that airhead Addinall is superior in intellect to him which
probably explains why he's sitting on the fence over AGW. Take it from
me fasgnadh you shit all over him in the smarts department.

The fact is, Addinall has got a closed mind on the issue. Open up any
of his posts and not one of them supports the notion of AGW, in fact
they all rubbish it.

And as far as Addinall being a "pretty bright fella" is concerned, he
seriously suggests that Australia buy Russian Sukhoi fighters. LOL.

He obviously doesn't have any conception or understanding of our
international relationships, commitments and treaty obligations?

So if you don't mind, I'll treat his equally half-baked pronouncements
on climate warming with the same derision.

Now don't wait up all night hoping for a response from Addinall, check
again in the morning.

Incidentally...

"I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl insults at each
other over the data, and the conclusions".

Thin ice, v-e-r-y thin ice.
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
2009-12-09 12:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by bringyagrogalong
Is it just me
If you're referring to that smell, its just you, Sergay.
--
http://youtu.be/_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.

"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.

"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.

"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.

"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.

"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.

"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.

"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!"
- FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.

"I don't care what you fuckers think!"
- KRudd the KRude Rat at his finest again.

"We'll just change it all when we get in."
- Garrett the carrott
fasgnadh
2009-12-09 13:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by bringyagrogalong
Post by fasgnadh
Post by bringyagrogalong
Post by Tomasso
Post by Addinall
Post by Krudd the Dud
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D
"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural
Here's a couple of interesting datasets. I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria. The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations. Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple. Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
history, and
are not a capital city. I wanted to look at data that was largely
unaffected from
UHI effect seen in the major cities. You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general. Do these data sets
look like
'global' warming is running away? I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I. The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory. I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect. Not by
him. The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).
Not wrong.
Christ! What have we got here?
A couple of thinking sceptics, quite distinct from
Minchin, Abbott, Barnaby Joyce, and the Usenet morons
CRUD, and Dr Sir John Winsome Coward.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Tweedledum and Tweedledumber ROFL
Oh, I don't think so.
Both pretty bright fellas.
So is Prof Ian Plimer who makes a good case for historic
climate change, (Part of the reason why Abbott's stupidty
"Climate Change is Crap" is such crap!) based on the geological
record, not 'climate 'models' (which have to be orders of
magnitude more complex than the ones which model an economy..
and we all saw how fucking accurate they are when the G.E.C. burst
on us unannounced.
The thing I hate most about this argument is the fixed positions
and the dominance in the debate of total thickies..
I have lost friends on the greenie save the earth side for
saying that I found Al Gore unimpressive, and now the current stupidity
is to dismiss all the science supporting global warming because
of some emails from one reseacher. VERY LITTLE OF THIS ARGUMENT
IS GOOD SCIENCE. And in a choice between Kevin Rudd and Al Gore
on once side and Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt on the other I prefer
to slit my own throat and bleed to death.
Post by bringyagrogalong
So you pair of idiots believe that your "research" is right while
research by the world's scientists is wrong.
Well, I had a look at the datasets. I think that's how science is done.
At least consider the evidence.
It wouldn't be the first time one man was right and the entire
community of the learned had their heads stuck up their arses, Galileao.
I ripped into Abbott because he's a fucking thug and a hypocrital,
back flipping opportunist on climate change. Not becausue I think
the global warming argument is settled.
I thing the sea temps are critical, and the Goddard/NASA sattelite
data does indicate some slight warming.
It's the *models* which suggest panic, and that's not enough to convince
me that the matter is an open and shut case! .. but it is enough for me
to think we should be doing everything sensible to prepare for climate
change, even if it's driven by solar activity.
Then there is the question of the anthropogenic causes, how significant
are they, what proportion of atmospheric CO2 is produced by humans .. 4%?
But I think it essential that we develop GLOBAL responses to a wide
range of issues, so, the more Copenhagens, the better we will get at it.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Ever thought to wonder why the world's governments are attending the
Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference?
Becasue when each of their respective governments (including the
previous Howard one) asked their chief scientific advisors they all said
follow the precautionary principle... the indications are that slow
warming is occurring, we could be contributing to it, but there
is no certainty. Thus they are all trying to make some changes to
the way energy is produced, without fucking their economies. Tough job.
And they can't be CERTAIN their assessment of the threat is right!
Which is why sceptics are fine by me.. they just have to convince
enough people through the evidence.. first the scientific community,
then the general public. My mind is still open.
Till then it's slight speed ahead.. the most rational course.
But as with the Ozone depletion, united action can solve complex
problems. It's a new paradigm for humanity.. global governance
is in it's infancy and faces considerable hostility.
The alternative to contention for resources (War over oil and water) is
co-operative solutions, and the mere agreement between China and the USA
on united action on climate change is easily worth a spare
Trillion, let alone the Billions proposed. I expect to see China being
the new driver of Solar panel and electric vehicle technology..
hopefully integrated mass transport and less cars, which are already
dysfunctional in large urban environments. All of these benefits are
incidental to the 'Reduce emissions' debate, but they represent my
interest.. I will be happy if Climate change concerns are the driver..
it seems fear is all that can motivate some people...
Meanwhile the tories are squabbling over the crumbs of defeat.
There are larger issues than who wins the next election is Australia.
Our footprint on the planet is too heavy.
We have already fished the richest ocean fishery, the Grand Banks, to
death, endless growth is destroying forests and rivers and sending
countless species extinct.. there are too many of us consuming too
many resources and we will need another four planets if the Chinese and
Iindians all adopt our middle class lifestyle of endless fucking
consumption.
I for one am prepared to do without multiple TVs cars iPods and plastic
shit if we can get a river or two to run clean and free.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Perhaps you should forward your bullshit so they can call the whole
thing off. ROFL
What Mark presented isn't Bullshit.. it's BOM and polar region data.
The BOM's own analysis of the entire national dataset is however,
"Mean maximum temperature has increased over most
of Australia since 1950"
http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/200603/nicholls_hres.pdf
I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl
insults at each other over the data, and the conclusions.
--
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl...
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-fa...
Is it just me, or...is fasgnadh, of all people, deferring to Addinall?
I thought I disputed his analysis, in very specific terms:


# What Mark presented isn't Bullshit.. it's BOM and polar region data.
#
# The BOM's own analysis of the entire national dataset is however,
# different from their partial dataset:
#
# "Mean maximum temperature has increased over most
# of Australia since 1950"
#
# http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/200603/nicholls_hres.pdf


You can make any argument with partial data.
Post by bringyagrogalong
hmmm! Let me read his post again.
Yep! It's a grovel alright!
I was talking to you, not Mark.

Respect is not grovelling.

I just disagree with both of you. It's not uncommon for
me to be in disagreement with both sides of a shitfight...
I'm one of the few independent and original thinkers in Usenet.

And in both cases I argue the facts, not abuse either of you.

I reserve my abuse for those who show themselves to be
worthy of nothing else. And then I beat them at their abuse. B^]

So far, neither of you have seemed be worthy of nothing but abuse.

...but things change.
Post by bringyagrogalong
It's almost like he's desperately seeking approval.
Everyone likes approval, but I earn mine from those who understand,
and I don't care for it, from those who dont.
Post by bringyagrogalong
He appears to
think that airhead Addinall is superior in intellect to him which
probably explains why he's sitting on the fence over AGW.
I explained where I sit on AGW and why. It hasn't changed
because of Mark's post, nor yours.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Take it from
me fasgnadh you shit all over him in the smarts department.
It's not a pissing comp, and flattery has no more affect
on the matter than abuse.

Is Abbot smarter than Turnbull because he won the leadership?

I make no excuse for liking Mark, but I've probably disagreed
with him more often than I have with you.

Two ,or three, smart people can all see things differently.

And smart people can disagree and still respect one another.

I reserve my vitriol for the abusive ignorant, the blind bigots,
the hate-filled...

Think what you like.
Post by bringyagrogalong
The fact is, Addinall has got a closed mind on the issue. Open up any
of his posts and not one of them supports the notion of AGW, in fact
they all rubbish it.
Well the one I opened had some data in it.

I considered the data and disagreed with the conclusion.

Most Climate Change deniers are like Abbot.. haven't
reviewed the serious scientific arguments.
Post by bringyagrogalong
And as far as Addinall being a "pretty bright fella" is concerned, he
seriously suggests that Australia buy Russian Sukhoi fighters. LOL.
Are you seeking my approval/disapproval? ;-)
Post by bringyagrogalong
He obviously doesn't have any conception or understanding of our
international relationships, commitments and treaty obligations?
By the time the overpriced American fighters arrive we might have
had a lifetime of use from the Sukhoi.

It's not as if the Americans are giving us mate's rates.
Post by bringyagrogalong
So if you don't mind, I'll treat his equally half-baked pronouncements
on climate warming with the same derision.
Fine, just don't expect me to 'take sides'.

I go my own way on just about everything.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Now don't wait up all night hoping for a response from Addinall, check
again in the morning.
Mate, I've got more interesting things going on in my life
that worrying about anything in Usenet. B^D

I genuinely enjoy discussion... I'm always learning things from
people, and I sometimes even change my mind..

Neither of you have convinced me of your position...

Like atheists and theists.. i seriously doubt either of you can...

this is a seriously complex issue.. and too subtle for Usenet
slanging matches, in my humble opinion.

Science is usually carried out with more reason and less ego.
(or at least it once was)
Post by bringyagrogalong
Incidentally...
"I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl insults at each
other over the data, and the conclusions".
Thin ice, v-e-r-y thin ice.
Not because of my argument, it must be all the hot air.

Poor bloody polar bears!
--
The only certainties are death and taxes, and you can avoid taxes.
bringyagrogalong
2009-12-10 08:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by bringyagrogalong
Is it just me, or...is fasgnadh, of all people, deferring to Addinall?
Yep! It's a grovel alright!
It's not uncommon for me to be in disagreement with both sides
of a shitfight...
I'm one of the few independent and original thinkers in Usenet.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Take it from me fasgnadh you shit all over him in the smarts department.
It's not a pissing comp, and flattery has no more affect
on the matter than abuse.
Is Abbot smarter than Turnbull because he won the leadership?
Christ! A little humility wouldn't have gone astray.
B J Foster
2009-12-09 19:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by bringyagrogalong
Post by fasgnadh
Post by bringyagrogalong
Post by Tomasso
Post by Addinall
Post by Krudd the Dud
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D
"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural
Here's a couple of interesting datasets. I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria. The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations. Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple. Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
history, and
are not a capital city. I wanted to look at data that was largely
unaffected from
UHI effect seen in the major cities. You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general. Do these data sets
look like
'global' warming is running away? I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I. The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory. I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect. Not by
him. The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).
Not wrong.
Christ! What have we got here?
A couple of thinking sceptics, quite distinct from
Minchin, Abbott, Barnaby Joyce, and the Usenet morons
CRUD, and Dr Sir John Winsome Coward.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Tweedledum and Tweedledumber ROFL
Oh, I don't think so.
Both pretty bright fellas.
So is Prof Ian Plimer who makes a good case for historic
climate change, (Part of the reason why Abbott's stupidty
"Climate Change is Crap" is such crap!) based on the geological
record, not 'climate 'models' (which have to be orders of
magnitude more complex than the ones which model an economy..
and we all saw how fucking accurate they are when the G.E.C. burst
on us unannounced.
The thing I hate most about this argument is the fixed positions
and the dominance in the debate of total thickies..
I have lost friends on the greenie save the earth side for
saying that I found Al Gore unimpressive, and now the current stupidity
is to dismiss all the science supporting global warming because
of some emails from one reseacher. VERY LITTLE OF THIS ARGUMENT
IS GOOD SCIENCE. And in a choice between Kevin Rudd and Al Gore
on once side and Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt on the other I prefer
to slit my own throat and bleed to death.
Post by bringyagrogalong
So you pair of idiots believe that your "research" is right while
research by the world's scientists is wrong.
Well, I had a look at the datasets. I think that's how science is done.
At least consider the evidence.
It wouldn't be the first time one man was right and the entire
community of the learned had their heads stuck up their arses, Galileao.
I ripped into Abbott because he's a fucking thug and a hypocrital,
back flipping opportunist on climate change. Not becausue I think
the global warming argument is settled.
I thing the sea temps are critical, and the Goddard/NASA sattelite
data does indicate some slight warming.
It's the *models* which suggest panic, and that's not enough to convince
me that the matter is an open and shut case! .. but it is enough for me
to think we should be doing everything sensible to prepare for climate
change, even if it's driven by solar activity.
Then there is the question of the anthropogenic causes, how significant
are they, what proportion of atmospheric CO2 is produced by humans .. 4%?
But I think it essential that we develop GLOBAL responses to a wide
range of issues, so, the more Copenhagens, the better we will get at it.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Ever thought to wonder why the world's governments are attending the
Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference?
Becasue when each of their respective governments (including the
previous Howard one) asked their chief scientific advisors they all said
follow the precautionary principle... the indications are that slow
warming is occurring, we could be contributing to it, but there
is no certainty. Thus they are all trying to make some changes to
the way energy is produced, without fucking their economies. Tough job.
And they can't be CERTAIN their assessment of the threat is right!
Which is why sceptics are fine by me.. they just have to convince
enough people through the evidence.. first the scientific community,
then the general public. My mind is still open.
Till then it's slight speed ahead.. the most rational course.
But as with the Ozone depletion, united action can solve complex
problems. It's a new paradigm for humanity.. global governance
is in it's infancy and faces considerable hostility.
The alternative to contention for resources (War over oil and water) is
co-operative solutions, and the mere agreement between China and the USA
on united action on climate change is easily worth a spare
Trillion, let alone the Billions proposed. I expect to see China being
the new driver of Solar panel and electric vehicle technology..
hopefully integrated mass transport and less cars, which are already
dysfunctional in large urban environments. All of these benefits are
incidental to the 'Reduce emissions' debate, but they represent my
interest.. I will be happy if Climate change concerns are the driver..
it seems fear is all that can motivate some people...
Meanwhile the tories are squabbling over the crumbs of defeat.
There are larger issues than who wins the next election is Australia.
Our footprint on the planet is too heavy.
We have already fished the richest ocean fishery, the Grand Banks, to
death, endless growth is destroying forests and rivers and sending
countless species extinct.. there are too many of us consuming too
many resources and we will need another four planets if the Chinese and
Iindians all adopt our middle class lifestyle of endless fucking
consumption.
I for one am prepared to do without multiple TVs cars iPods and plastic
shit if we can get a river or two to run clean and free.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Perhaps you should forward your bullshit so they can call the whole
thing off. ROFL
What Mark presented isn't Bullshit.. it's BOM and polar region data.
The BOM's own analysis of the entire national dataset is however,
"Mean maximum temperature has increased over most
of Australia since 1950"
http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/200603/nicholls_hres.pdf
I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl
insults at each other over the data, and the conclusions.
--
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl...
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-fa...
Is it just me, or...is fasgnadh, of all people, deferring to Addinall?
hmmm! Let me read his post again.
Yep! It's a grovel alright!
It's almost like he's desperately seeking approval. He appears to
think that airhead Addinall is superior in intellect to him which
probably explains why he's sitting on the fence over AGW. Take it from
me fasgnadh you shit all over him in the smarts department.
Nope. Unlike you, once every century he admits that he's fucked up
Addinall
2009-12-11 12:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by bringyagrogalong
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Tomasso
Post by Addinall
Post by Krudd the Dud
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D
"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural
Here's a couple of interesting datasets.  I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria.  The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations.  Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple.  Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
history, and
are not a capital city.  I wanted to look at data that was largely
unaffected from
UHI effect seen in the major cities.  You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general.  Do these data sets
look like
'global' warming is running away?  I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I.  The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory.  I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect.  Not by
him.  The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).
Not wrong.
Christ!  What have we got here?
A couple of thinking sceptics, quite distinct from
Minchin, Abbott, Barnaby Joyce, and the Usenet morons
CRUD, and Dr Sir John Winsome Coward.
Tweedledum and Tweedledumber  ROFL
Oh, I don't think so.
Both pretty bright fellas.
So is Prof Ian Plimer who makes a good case for historic
climate change, (Part of the reason why Abbott's stupidty
"Climate Change is Crap" is such crap!) based on the geological
record, not 'climate 'models' (which have to be orders of
magnitude more complex than the ones which model an economy..
and we all saw how fucking accurate they are when the G.E.C. burst
on us unannounced.
The thing I hate most about this argument is the fixed positions
and the dominance in the debate of total thickies..
I have lost friends on the greenie save the earth side for
saying that I found Al Gore unimpressive, and now the current stupidity
is to dismiss all the science supporting global warming because
of some emails from one reseacher.  VERY LITTLE OF THIS ARGUMENT
IS GOOD SCIENCE.  And in a choice between Kevin Rudd and Al Gore
on once side and Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt on the other I prefer
to slit my own throat and bleed to death.
So you pair of idiots believe that your "research" is right while
research by the world's scientists is wrong.
Well, I had a look at the datasets.  I think that's how science is done.
At least consider the evidence.
It wouldn't be the first time one man was right and the entire
community of the learned had their heads stuck up their arses, Galileao.
I ripped into Abbott because he's a fucking thug and a hypocrital,
back flipping opportunist on climate change.  Not becausue I think
the global warming argument is settled.
I thing the sea temps are critical, and the Goddard/NASA sattelite
data does indicate some slight warming.
It's the *models* which suggest panic, and that's not enough to convince
me that the matter is an open and shut case! ..  but it is enough for me
to think we should be doing everything sensible to prepare for climate
change, even if it's driven by solar activity.
Then there is the question of the anthropogenic causes, how significant
are they, what proportion of atmospheric CO2 is produced by humans .. 4%?
But I think it essential that we develop GLOBAL responses to a wide
range of issues, so, the more Copenhagens, the better we will get at it.
 > Ever thought to wonder why the world's governments are attending the
 > Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference?
Becasue when each of their respective governments (including the
previous Howard one) asked their chief scientific advisors they all said
follow the precautionary principle...  the indications are that slow
warming is occurring, we could be contributing to it, but there
is no certainty.   Thus they are all trying to make some changes to
the way energy is produced, without fucking their economies. Tough job.
And they can't be CERTAIN their assessment of the threat is right!
Which is why sceptics are fine by me.. they just have to convince
enough people through the evidence..  first the scientific community,
then the general public.  My mind is still open.
Till then it's slight speed ahead..  the most rational course.
But as with the Ozone depletion, united action can solve complex
problems.  It's a new paradigm for humanity.. global governance
is in it's infancy and faces considerable hostility.
The alternative to contention for resources (War over oil and water) is
co-operative solutions, and the mere agreement between China and the USA
on united action on climate change is easily worth a spare
Trillion, let alone the Billions proposed. I expect to see China being
the new driver of Solar panel and electric vehicle technology..
hopefully integrated mass transport and less cars, which are already
dysfunctional in large urban environments.   All of these benefits are
incidental to the 'Reduce emissions' debate, but they represent my
interest..  I will be happy if Climate change concerns are the driver..
it seems fear is all that can motivate some people...
Meanwhile the tories are squabbling over the crumbs of defeat.
There are larger issues than who wins the next election is Australia.
Our footprint on the planet is too heavy.
We have already fished the richest ocean fishery, the Grand Banks, to
death, endless growth is destroying forests and rivers and sending
countless species extinct..  there are too many of us consuming too
many resources and we will need another four planets if the Chinese and
Iindians all adopt our middle class lifestyle of endless fucking
consumption.
I for one am prepared to do without multiple TVs cars iPods and plastic
shit if we can get a river or two to run clean and free.
Perhaps you should forward your bullshit so they can call the whole
thing off.  ROFL
What Mark presented isn't Bullshit..  it's BOM and polar region data.
The BOM's own analysis of the entire national dataset is however,
The dataset Tom and I had a look at some years ago was one of the
'corrected' kind.
My recent work has been on BoM raw data, and I did it without Tom.
He's too busy.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Post by fasgnadh
"Mean maximum temperature has increased over most
of Australia since 1950"
http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/200603/nicholls_hres.pdf
I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl
insults at each other over the data, and the conclusions.
--
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl...
  "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
      -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
  "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
      - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
  "How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
      - Lenin
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
   http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-fa...
Is it just me, or...is fasgnadh, of all people, deferring to Addinall?
hmmm! Let me read his post again.
Yep! It's a grovel alright!
It's almost like he's desperately seeking approval. He appears to
think that airhead Addinall is superior in intellect to him which
probably explains why he's sitting on the fence over AGW. Take it from
me fasgnadh you shit all over him in the smarts department.
The fact is, Addinall has got a closed mind on the issue. Open up any
of his posts and not one of them supports the notion of AGW, in fact
they all rubbish it.
And as far as Addinall being a "pretty bright fella" is concerned, he
seriously suggests that Australia buy Russian Sukhoi fighters. LOL.
He obviously doesn't have any conception or understanding of our
international relationships, commitments and treaty obligations?
Point me to a treaty where it says we MUST buy American rubbish
at a greatly inflated pice. What would the ISDN be?

Anyway, even though the toy F-35A has flown a whole two times now, is
three years behind schedule, $20 BILLION dollars over budget and is
being ignored in droves by anyone wanting a strike fighter, the
government
of Australia still seems impressed with LM presentation slides.
Meanwhile......


"Russia's Radical Sukhoi S-37 Fighter Plane Goes Up Against Our F-22
Page_white_text an academic article by Barry (Occams), published on 10
December 2009
tagged as russian, fighter, aircraft, s37, f35, f22, and asia

How the hell do they do it?

A crumbling economy, corruption, failed institutions and still the
Russians can produce an amazing fighter aircraft like this.

I don’t know if it really is better than our F22, but it certainly
appears to be competitive, and that is one hell of an achievement when
you think of the size, funding, history and culture of the military
industrial complex of the USA.

There really can only be one answer. Russian military aircraft
research is highly capable and efficient. Apparently they do have some
production problems but can still undercut the USA on price.

These aircraft are selling like hot cakes in Asia, and our allies who
are waiting for the Joint Strike Fighter are getting nervous.

And it costs less!
quote from the above ref:
“I don’t want to get into the numbers because they were given to me in
confidence but the price the Russians are estimating for their fifth
generation fighter is substantially less than the Joint Strike Fighter
(F-35) and substantially less than F-22,” US aviation expert Reuben
Johnson told a Washington forum last week on "challenges to the Asian
air power balance

Meanwhile the USA is banning export of its best aircraft."

http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Russias_Radical_Sukhoi_S_37_Fighter_Plane_Goes_Up_Against_Our_F_22

And we could build them here, under license, giving us a brand new
aerospace industry worth billions of dollars. And have soveriegn
control over the use, maintenance and repair of our air fleet.
Unlike.....

"US upsets F-35 partners by withholding source code
Thu, Nov 26, 2009
Reuters




WASHINGTON - In a move that has sparked bitterness among supposed
collaborators, the United States is to keep to itself sensitive
software code that controls Lockheed Martin's new radar-evading F-35
fighter despite requests from partner countries.

Access to the technology had been publicly sought by key ally Britain,
which had threatened to scrub plans to buy as many as 138 F-35s if it
was unable to maintain and upgrade its fleet without US involvement.

No other nation will get the so-called source code, the key to the
plane's electronic brains, Mr Jon Schreiber, the Pentagon official
heading the programme's international affairs, said. He admitted this
had displeased the eight nations co-financing F-35 development:
Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark
and Norway"

And the only two countries still supporting the toy are Australia and
Turkey. Turkey are getting thier's for free. Get what you pay for.
Whereas we are going to start paying some $250 million per airframe
for an aircraft that can hardly fly, let alone fight. Back to
repair....

"[...] the US is to set up a "reprogramming facility", probably at
Florida's Eglin Air Force Base, to further develop F-35-related
software and distribute upgrades. Software changes will be integrated
"and new operational flight programmes... disseminated to everybody
who's flying the jet," said Mr Schreiber."

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Tech/Story/A1Story20091126-182416.html

Oh goody.

"Britain had threatened to bail out in 2006 if the US withheld such
things as the software code. In May 2006, then President George W.
Bush and then Premier Tony Blair announced "the UK will have the
ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the
Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty
over the aircraft"."

They changed thier minds, two years down the track. The Poms aren't
going to buy it and they were the largest non USSA investor in the
toy. Face it, it's not ever going to be built and deployed. It's a
failure before it flies.

Just this week....


"QDR Likely Kills Two Carriers, EFV
By Colin Clark Wednesday, December 9th, 2009 11:17 am
Posted in Air, Land, Naval, Policy, Rumors

UPDATED: JSF Cut About 100 Planes, One Year Added to Schedule

Word on Capitol Hill is that the Quadrennial Defense Review should
result in the demise of two Navy car­rier groups and the Marines’
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. On top of that, the Joint Strike
Fighter pro­gram is likely to lose a so-​​far uncer­tain num­ber of
planes and the Air Force looks to lose two air wings.

Folks on the Hill are watch­ing the car­rier cuts par­tic­u­larly
closely. They were will­ing to accept the tem­po­rary loss of one car­
rier but two groups may just be too much for law­mak­ers to swal­low
though it would con­ve­niently answer the hot debate about whether the
Navy faces a fighter gap.

“Even if they cut two car­rier strike groups (which will be an uphill
bat­tle for DOD), they still face a sig­nif­i­cant USN fighter gap,”
said a con­gres­sional aide fol­low­ing this. “The Navy seems to rec­
og­nize this, but every­thing we’ve heard thus far from OSD seems to
indi­cate that they’d rather try funny math then address a clear gap.”

The 2010 defense autho­riza­tion report noted care­fully that Congress
was will­ing to accept the “tem­po­rary reduc­tion in min­i­mum num­
ber of oper­a­tional air­craft car­ri­ers” from 11 to 10 until CVN 78
is com­mis­sioned in 2015. The report also noted that “the Navy has
made a long-​​term com­mit­ment to field 11 air­craft car­ri­ers out­
fit­ted with 10 car­rier air wings com­posed of 44 strike-​​fighters
in each wing.” Congress, the report’s authors said, is “very con­
cerned” about “cur­rent and fore­casted short­falls in the strike-​​
fighter inven­tory.” Given the totemic nature of car­ri­ers for the
Navy and the num­bers of jobs and the money at stake for mem­bers of
Congress, a bat­tle royal over plans to per­ma­nently reduce the fleet
by two car­rier groups seems assured.

On the Joint Strike Fighter, one con­gres­sional aide said a cut to
the F-35’s over­all num­bers would not be sur­pris­ing given the
program’s ris­ing costs and the tight­ened bud­get sit­u­a­tion the
coun­try faces for 2011. And now we have some detail about just how
big those cuts may be, Our col­leagues at Inside Defense are report­
ing that a draft Pentagon direc­tive would result in extend­ing,
“devel­op­ment by at least a year, reduce pro­duc­tion by approx­i­
mately 100 air­craft and require the addi­tion of bil­lions of dol­
lars to the effort through 2015.” "

The USSA is going broke. The F-35 is unaffordable and unwanted. It
is less capable than the Su-30MKI, the Su-35, the Su-37, the Su-34,
the Eurofighter. If one gets built that can ACTUALLY fly properly, it
just MIGHT keep up with a Rafale, but not with a Gripen NG. The F-15
is now the F-15SE aimed at the USAF shortfall, the A-10 fleet are
being upgraded to provide CAS. The F-18 E/F/G are undergoing
modernization design....The F-35 is dead as dead can be. That will
make Australia the only country in the region (sans NZ) that doesn't
have an Air Force. I don't think that this is a good idea. The USSA
are clearly not in a position to come storming into the Pacific to
help Australia, so I think it is time we helped ourselves.

Mark Addinall.
Post by bringyagrogalong
So if you don't mind, I'll treat his equally half-baked pronouncements
on climate warming with the same derision.
Now don't wait up all night hoping for a response from Addinall, check
again in the morning.
Incidentally...
"I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl insults at each
other over the data, and the conclusions".
Thin ice, v-e-r-y thin ice.
Addinall
2009-12-11 13:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by bringyagrogalong
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Tomasso
Post by Addinall
Post by Krudd the Dud
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D
"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural
Here's a couple of interesting datasets.  I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria.  The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations.  Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple.  Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
history, and
are not a capital city.  I wanted to look at data that was largely
unaffected from
UHI effect seen in the major cities.  You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general.  Do these data sets
look like
'global' warming is running away?  I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I.  The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory.  I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect.  Not by
him.  The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).
Not wrong.
Christ!  What have we got here?
A couple of thinking sceptics, quite distinct from
Minchin, Abbott, Barnaby Joyce, and the Usenet morons
CRUD, and Dr Sir John Winsome Coward.
Tweedledum and Tweedledumber  ROFL
Oh, I don't think so.
Both pretty bright fellas.
So is Prof Ian Plimer who makes a good case for historic
climate change, (Part of the reason why Abbott's stupidty
"Climate Change is Crap" is such crap!) based on the geological
record, not 'climate 'models' (which have to be orders of
magnitude more complex than the ones which model an economy..
and we all saw how fucking accurate they are when the G.E.C. burst
on us unannounced.
The thing I hate most about this argument is the fixed positions
and the dominance in the debate of total thickies..
I have lost friends on the greenie save the earth side for
saying that I found Al Gore unimpressive, and now the current stupidity
is to dismiss all the science supporting global warming because
of some emails from one reseacher.  VERY LITTLE OF THIS ARGUMENT
IS GOOD SCIENCE.  And in a choice between Kevin Rudd and Al Gore
on once side and Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt on the other I prefer
to slit my own throat and bleed to death.
So you pair of idiots believe that your "research" is right while
research by the world's scientists is wrong.
Well, I had a look at the datasets.  I think that's how science is done.
At least consider the evidence.
It wouldn't be the first time one man was right and the entire
community of the learned had their heads stuck up their arses, Galileao.
I ripped into Abbott because he's a fucking thug and a hypocrital,
back flipping opportunist on climate change.  Not becausue I think
the global warming argument is settled.
I thing the sea temps are critical, and the Goddard/NASA sattelite
data does indicate some slight warming.
It's the *models* which suggest panic, and that's not enough to convince
me that the matter is an open and shut case! ..  but it is enough for me
to think we should be doing everything sensible to prepare for climate
change, even if it's driven by solar activity.
Then there is the question of the anthropogenic causes, how significant
are they, what proportion of atmospheric CO2 is produced by humans .. 4%?
But I think it essential that we develop GLOBAL responses to a wide
range of issues, so, the more Copenhagens, the better we will get at it.
 > Ever thought to wonder why the world's governments are attending the
 > Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference?
Becasue when each of their respective governments (including the
previous Howard one) asked their chief scientific advisors they all said
follow the precautionary principle...  the indications are that slow
warming is occurring, we could be contributing to it, but there
is no certainty.   Thus they are all trying to make some changes to
the way energy is produced, without fucking their economies. Tough job.
And they can't be CERTAIN their assessment of the threat is right!
Which is why sceptics are fine by me.. they just have to convince
enough people through the evidence..  first the scientific community,
then the general public.  My mind is still open.
Till then it's slight speed ahead..  the most rational course.
But as with the Ozone depletion, united action can solve complex
problems.  It's a new paradigm for humanity.. global governance
is in it's infancy and faces considerable hostility.
The alternative to contention for resources (War over oil and water) is
co-operative solutions, and the mere agreement between China and the USA
on united action on climate change is easily worth a spare
Trillion, let alone the Billions proposed. I expect to see China being
the new driver of Solar panel and electric vehicle technology..
hopefully integrated mass transport and less cars, which are already
dysfunctional in large urban environments.   All of these benefits are
incidental to the 'Reduce emissions' debate, but they represent my
interest..  I will be happy if Climate change concerns are the driver..
it seems fear is all that can motivate some people...
Meanwhile the tories are squabbling over the crumbs of defeat.
There are larger issues than who wins the next election is Australia.
Our footprint on the planet is too heavy.
We have already fished the richest ocean fishery, the Grand Banks, to
death, endless growth is destroying forests and rivers and sending
countless species extinct..  there are too many of us consuming too
many resources and we will need another four planets if the Chinese and
Iindians all adopt our middle class lifestyle of endless fucking
consumption.
I for one am prepared to do without multiple TVs cars iPods and plastic
shit if we can get a river or two to run clean and free.
Perhaps you should forward your bullshit so they can call the whole
thing off.  ROFL
What Mark presented isn't Bullshit..  it's BOM and polar region data.
The BOM's own analysis of the entire national dataset is however,
The dataset Tom and I had a look at some years ago was one of the
'corrected' kind.
My recent work has been on BoM raw data, and I did it without Tom.
He's too busy.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Post by fasgnadh
"Mean maximum temperature has increased over most
of Australia since 1950"
http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/200603/nicholls_hres.pdf
I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl
insults at each other over the data, and the conclusions.
--
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl...
  "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
      -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
  "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
      - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
  "How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
      - Lenin
   http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
   http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-fa...
Is it just me, or...is fasgnadh, of all people, deferring to Addinall?
hmmm! Let me read his post again.
Yep! It's a grovel alright!
It's almost like he's desperately seeking approval. He appears to
think that airhead Addinall is superior in intellect to him which
probably explains why he's sitting on the fence over AGW. Take it from
me fasgnadh you shit all over him in the smarts department.
The fact is, Addinall has got a closed mind on the issue. Open up any
of his posts and not one of them supports the notion of AGW, in fact
they all rubbish it.
And as far as Addinall being a "pretty bright fella" is concerned, he
seriously suggests that Australia buy Russian Sukhoi fighters. LOL.
He obviously doesn't have any conception or understanding of our
international relationships, commitments and treaty obligations?
Point me to a treaty where it says we MUST buy American rubbish
at a greatly inflated pice.  What would the ISDN be?
Anyway, even though the toy F-35A has flown a whole two times now, is
three years behind schedule, $20 BILLION dollars over budget and is
being ignored in droves by anyone wanting a strike fighter, the
government
of Australia still seems impressed with LM presentation slides.
Meanwhile......
"Russia's Radical Sukhoi S-37 Fighter Plane Goes Up Against Our F-22
Page_white_text an academic article by Barry (Occams), published on 10
December 2009
tagged as russian, fighter, aircraft, s37, f35, f22, and asia
How the hell do they do it?
A crumbling economy, corruption, failed institutions and still the
Russians can produce an amazing fighter aircraft like this.
I don’t know if it really is better than our F22, but it certainly
appears to be competitive, and that is one hell of an achievement when
you think of the size, funding, history and culture of the military
industrial complex of the USA.
There really can only be one answer. Russian military aircraft
research is highly capable and efficient. Apparently they do have some
production problems but can still undercut the USA on price.
These aircraft are selling like hot cakes in Asia, and our allies who
are waiting for the Joint Strike Fighter are getting nervous.
And it costs less!
“I don’t want to get into the numbers because they were given to me in
confidence but the price the Russians are estimating for their fifth
generation fighter is substantially less than the Joint Strike Fighter
(F-35) and substantially less than F-22,” US aviation expert Reuben
Johnson told a Washington forum last week on "challenges to the Asian
air power balance
Meanwhile the USA is banning export of its best aircraft."
http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Russias_Radical_Sukhoi_S_37_Fighter_...
And we could build them here, under license, giving us a brand new
aerospace industry worth billions of dollars.  And have soveriegn
control over the use, maintenance and repair of our air fleet.
Unlike.....
"US upsets F-35 partners by withholding source code
Thu, Nov 26, 2009
Reuters
WASHINGTON - In a move that has sparked bitterness among supposed
collaborators, the United States is to keep to itself sensitive
software code that controls Lockheed Martin's new radar-evading F-35
fighter despite requests from partner countries.
Access to the technology had been publicly sought by key ally Britain,
which had threatened to scrub plans to buy as many as 138 F-35s if it
was unable to maintain and upgrade its fleet without US involvement.
No other nation will get the so-called source code, the key to the
plane's electronic brains, Mr Jon Schreiber, the Pentagon official
heading the programme's international affairs, said. He admitted this
Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark
and Norway"
And the only two countries still supporting the toy are Australia and
Turkey.  Turkey are getting thier's for free.  Get what you pay for.
Whereas we are going to start paying some $250 million per airframe
for an aircraft that can hardly fly, let alone fight.  Back to
repair....
"[...] the US is to set up a "reprogramming facility", probably at
Florida's Eglin Air Force Base, to further develop F-35-related
software and distribute upgrades. Software changes will be integrated
"and new operational flight programmes... disseminated to everybody
who's flying the jet," said Mr Schreiber."
http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Tech/Story/A1Story20091126...
Oh goody.
"Britain had threatened to bail out in 2006 if the US withheld such
things as the software code. In May 2006, then President George W.
Bush and then Premier Tony Blair announced "the UK will have the
ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the
Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty
over the aircraft"."
They changed thier minds, two years down the track.  The Poms aren't
going to buy it and they were the largest non USSA investor in the
toy.  Face it, it's not ever going to be built and deployed.  It's a
failure before it flies.
Just this week....
"QDR Likely Kills Two Carriers, EFV
By Colin Clark Wednesday, December 9th, 2009 11:17 am
Posted in Air, Land, Naval, Policy, Rumors
UPDATED: JSF Cut About 100 Planes, One Year Added to Schedule
Word on Capitol Hill is that the Quadrennial Defense Review should
result in the demise of two Navy car­rier groups and the Marines’
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. On top of that, the Joint Strike
Fighter pro­gram is likely to lose a so-​​far uncer­tain num­ber of
planes and the Air Force looks to lose two air wings.
Folks on the Hill are watch­ing the car­rier cuts par­tic­u­larly
closely. They were will­ing to accept the tem­po­rary loss of one car­
rier but two groups may just be too much for law­mak­ers to swal­low
though it would con­ve­niently answer the hot debate about whether the
Navy faces a fighter gap.
“Even if they cut two car­rier strike groups (which will be an uphill
bat­tle for DOD), they still face a sig­nif­i­cant USN fighter gap,”
said a con­gres­sional aide fol­low­ing this. “The Navy seems to rec­
og­nize this, but every­thing we’ve heard thus far from OSD seems to
indi­cate that they’d rather try funny math then address a clear gap.”
The 2010 defense autho­riza­tion report noted care­fully that Congress
was will­ing to accept the “tem­po­rary reduc­tion in min­i­mum num­
ber of oper­a­tional air­craft car­ri­ers” from 11 to 10 until CVN 78
is com­mis­sioned in 2015. The report also noted that “the Navy has
made a long-​​term com­mit­ment to field 11 air­craft car­ri­ers out­
fit­ted with 10 car­rier air wings com­posed of 44 strike-​​fighters
in each wing.” Congress, the report’s authors said, is “very con­
cerned” about “cur­rent and fore­casted short­falls in the strike-
fighter inven­tory.” Given the totemic nature of car­ri­ers for the
Navy and the num­bers of jobs and the money at stake for mem­bers of
Congress, a bat­tle royal over plans to per­ma­nently reduce the fleet
by two car­rier groups seems assured.
On the Joint Strike Fighter, one con­gres­sional aide said a cut to
the F-35’s over­all num­bers would not be sur­pris­ing given the
program’s ris­ing costs and the tight­ened bud­get sit­u­a­tion the
coun­try faces for 2011. And now we have some detail about just how
big those cuts may be, Our col­leagues at Inside Defense are report­
ing that a draft Pentagon direc­tive would result in extend­ing,
“devel­op­ment by at least a year, reduce pro­duc­tion by approx­i­
mately 100 air­craft and require the addi­tion of bil­lions of dol­
lars to the effort through 2015.” "
The USSA is going broke.  The F-35 is unaffordable and unwanted.  It
is less capable than the Su-30MKI, the Su-35, the Su-37, the Su-34,
the Eurofighter.  If one gets built that can ACTUALLY fly properly, it
just MIGHT keep up with a Rafale, but not with a Gripen NG.  The F-15
is now the F-15SE aimed at the USAF shortfall, the A-10 fleet are
being upgraded to provide CAS.  The F-18 E/F/G are undergoing
modernization design....The F-35 is dead as dead can be.  That will
make Australia the only country in the region (sans NZ) that doesn't
have an Air Force.  I don't think that this is a good idea.  The USSA
are clearly not in a position to come storming into the Pacific to
help Australia, so I think it is time we helped ourselves.
Mark Addinall.
Interview with the head of the Eurofighter at Tranche 2/3

"MT: Are you worried by the competition by the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter?

Casolini: Not really. The Eurofighter and the F-35 are aimed at
different sectors of the market. Actually, we feel that the very
presence of the F-35 will turn the Eurofighter into the veritable
“Coalition Fighter”. Despite claims by the manufacturer about air
combat capabilities, it is pretty obvious that F-35s deployed in their
primary attack role would need to be protected from the possible
presence of enemy fighters - and with the F-22 programme terminated at
187 aircraft, there is no way the US Air Force could extend its air
superiority umbrella to cover allied/coalition attack assets in
addition to its own. Some countries that are currently considering the
possible purchase of the JSF, basically in that it would enable them
to participate to US-led coalitions, will soon discover this basic
point. This is for instance the case with Turkey or Japan, which would
eventually want to deploy the same mixed fleet of Eurofighters and
F-35s as Italy and the UK."


Gosh. I think I have been saying that for about six years now. The
F-35 as the primary amdonly air assett is a failure.

Mark Addinall.
Post by Addinall
Post by bringyagrogalong
So if you don't mind, I'll treat his equally half-baked pronouncements
on climate warming with the same derision.
Now don't wait up all night hoping for a response from Addinall, check
again in the morning.
Incidentally...
"I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl insults at each
other over the data, and the conclusions".
Thin ice, v-e-r-y thin ice.
B J Foster
2009-12-11 19:05:44 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Addinall
Post by Addinall
The USSA is going broke. The F-35 is unaffordable and unwanted. It
is less capable than the Su-30MKI, the Su-35, the Su-37, the Su-34,
the Eurofighter. If one gets built that can ACTUALLY fly properly, it
just MIGHT keep up with a Rafale, but not with a Gripen NG. The F-15
is now the F-15SE aimed at the USAF shortfall, the A-10 fleet are
being upgraded to provide CAS. The F-18 E/F/G are undergoing
modernization design....The F-35 is dead as dead can be. That will
make Australia the only country in the region (sans NZ) that doesn't
have an Air Force. I don't think that this is a good idea. The USSA
are clearly not in a position to come storming into the Pacific to
help Australia, so I think it is time we helped ourselves.
Mark Addinall.
Interview with the head of the Eurofighter at Tranche 2/3
"MT: Are you worried by the competition by the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter?
Casolini: Not really. The Eurofighter and the F-35 are aimed at
different sectors of the market. Actually, we feel that the very
presence of the F-35 will turn the Eurofighter into the veritable
“Coalition Fighter”. Despite claims by the manufacturer about air
combat capabilities, it is pretty obvious that F-35s deployed in their
primary attack role would need to be protected from the possible
presence of enemy fighters -
Have you spoken with your local member about this? Maybe these questions
need to be raised in parliament.

Mr Faulkner, are you aware that the F-35 will not be ready in
time....that when it is delivered it will not be general purpose...and
that the same money can pay for twice as many more capable fighters?

Maybe if your member isn't amenable to serving Australia's interests,
the Sydney Morning Herald might be?
Post by Addinall
and with the F-22 programme terminated at
187 aircraft, there is no way the US Air Force could extend its air
superiority umbrella to cover allied/coalition attack assets in
addition to its own. Some countries that are currently considering the
possible purchase of the JSF, basically in that it would enable them
to participate to US-led coalitions, will soon discover this basic
point. This is for instance the case with Turkey or Japan, which would
eventually want to deploy the same mixed fleet of Eurofighters and
F-35s as Italy and the UK."
Gosh. I think I have been saying that for about six years now. The
F-35 as the primary amdonly air assett is a failure.
Mark Addinall.
Post by Addinall
Post by bringyagrogalong
So if you don't mind, I'll treat his equally half-baked pronouncements
on climate warming with the same derision.
Now don't wait up all night hoping for a response from Addinall, check
again in the morning.
Incidentally...
"I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl insults at each
other over the data, and the conclusions".
Thin ice, v-e-r-y thin ice.
Addinall
2009-12-12 06:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by B J Foster
...
Post by Addinall
Post by Addinall
The USSA is going broke.  The F-35 is unaffordable and unwanted.  It
is less capable than the Su-30MKI, the Su-35, the Su-37, the Su-34,
the Eurofighter.  If one gets built that can ACTUALLY fly properly, it
just MIGHT keep up with a Rafale, but not with a Gripen NG.  The F-15
is now the F-15SE aimed at the USAF shortfall, the A-10 fleet are
being upgraded to provide CAS.  The F-18 E/F/G are undergoing
modernization design....The F-35 is dead as dead can be.  That will
make Australia the only country in the region (sans NZ) that doesn't
have an Air Force.  I don't think that this is a good idea.  The USSA
are clearly not in a position to come storming into the Pacific to
help Australia, so I think it is time we helped ourselves.
Mark Addinall.
Interview with the head of the Eurofighter at Tranche 2/3
"MT: Are you worried by the competition by the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter?
Casolini: Not really. The Eurofighter and the F-35 are aimed at
different sectors of the market. Actually, we feel that the very
presence of the F-35 will turn the Eurofighter into the veritable
“Coalition Fighter”. Despite claims by the manufacturer about air
combat capabilities, it is pretty obvious that F-35s deployed in their
primary attack role would need to be protected from the possible
presence of enemy fighters -
Have you spoken with your local member about this? Maybe these questions
need to be raised in parliament.
Of course I have, at length, for years.
Post by B J Foster
Mr Faulkner, are you aware that the F-35 will not be ready in
time....that when it is delivered it will not be general purpose...and
that the same money can pay for twice as many more capable fighters?
Many of us have been predicting this for a long time. Australia is
the only country
still getting sucked into this mess. We could buy Su-35 - Su-34
combos now
in sufficient quantity to cover our air sea gap again for another
decade or more.
Not rocket science. We could build our own Aerospace industry by
manufacturing
the things here. The Su-34 replaces the role as very long range, fast
strike fighter
and the F-35 providing air superiority. Failing that, perhaps a
mixture of Eurofighters
and some other thing. Replacing the strike capabilities of the F-111
is the hard ask.
Post by B J Foster
Maybe if your member isn't amenable to serving Australia's interests,
the Sydney Morning Herald might be?
That would involve a few of them getting out of the boozer once in a
while
and writing about something other than global warming. It's a mess.
I
was right about the Sea-Sprites, I was right concerning the Collins, I
was right
with the Abrams, I was right about scary WMD and I'm right about this.
The RAAF is NEVER going to see operational squadrons of F-35 that
can fight a war. NEVER.

Cheers,
Mark.
Post by B J Foster
Post by Addinall
and with the F-22 programme terminated at
187 aircraft, there is no way the US Air Force could extend its air
superiority umbrella to cover allied/coalition attack assets in
addition to its own. Some countries that are currently considering the
possible purchase of the JSF, basically in that it would enable them
to participate to US-led coalitions, will soon discover this basic
point. This is for instance the case with Turkey or Japan, which would
eventually want to deploy the same mixed fleet of Eurofighters and
F-35s as Italy and the UK."
Gosh.  I think I have been saying that for about six years now.  The
F-35 as the primary amdonly air assett is a failure.
Mark Addinall.
Post by Addinall
Post by bringyagrogalong
So if you don't mind, I'll treat his equally half-baked pronouncements
on climate warming with the same derision.
Now don't wait up all night hoping for a response from Addinall, check
again in the morning.
Incidentally...
"I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl insults at each
other over the data, and the conclusions".
Thin ice, v-e-r-y thin ice.
bringyagrogalong
2009-12-13 11:34:21 UTC
Permalink
Oh! and Addinall and Tomasso as well.

In fact, it should be required reading for all AGW skeptics.

I urge all of you skeptics and deniers to avail yourself of the
"Synthesis Report" produced by the International Alliance of Research
Universities. It's available free on the internet and at 39 pages it
summarises the evidence for growing ocean and surface temperatures,
sea-level rises and ice melts, coupled with accelerating emissions of
greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, my advice will probably fall on deaf ears, as fasgnadh,
Addinall and Tomasso's names appear on the membership roll of the
following organisation...

http://tinyurl.com/9fd8

It's easy to picture them having a sausage-sizzle on the beach at
Banda Aceh just before the tsunami hit.

Ignoring facts and saying "we're just going to wait and see what
happens".
Hunter
2009-12-13 16:39:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by bringyagrogalong
Oh! and Addinall and Tomasso as well.
In fact, it should be required reading for all AGW skeptics.
I urge all of you skeptics and deniers to avail yourself of the
"Synthesis Report" produced by the International Alliance of Research
Universities. It's available free on the internet and at 39 pages it
summarises the evidence for growing ocean and surface temperatures,
sea-level rises and ice melts, coupled with accelerating emissions of
greenhouse gases.
There's those magical graphs again, full of sanitised data that goes
back a few decades at best, in their attempt to hide the real picture....
Post by bringyagrogalong
Unfortunately, my advice will probably fall on deaf ears, as fasgnadh,
Addinall and Tomasso's names appear on the membership roll of the
following organisation...
http://tinyurl.com/9fd8
You've got your analogy arse about face, the accepted belief is in
man-made CO2 causing global warming (the mythical accepted belief was
the world was flat), and just as there were smart cookies who thought
otherwise back then, the same is true now. No go lie back down on your
flat little planet.
Post by bringyagrogalong
It's easy to picture them having a sausage-sizzle on the beach at
Banda Aceh just before the tsunami hit.
Ignoring facts and saying "we're just going to wait and see what
happens".
And I bet you've already booked your funeral for 2012, always going for
the most hysterical reality you can get all rabid and worked-up about.
Krudd the Dud
2009-12-13 18:48:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 03:34:21 -0800 (PST), bringyagrogalong
<***@aapt.net.au> wrote:


<stifling huge yawn>

Did you say something, Faggot Face?
Hunter
2009-12-09 11:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by fasgnadh
I have lost friends on the greenie save the earth side for
saying that I found Al Gore unimpressive, and now the current stupidity
is to dismiss all the science supporting global warming because
of some emails from one reseacher. VERY LITTLE OF THIS ARGUMENT
IS GOOD SCIENCE. And in a choice between Kevin Rudd and Al Gore
on once side and Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt on the other I prefer
to slit my own throat and bleed to death.
And that is the whole crux of it really, it's become way too political
an issue and science seems to have been thrown out with the dish-water.
Not just in the armchair usenet community, conversations at the pub and
in the media, but by the scientists themselves in many cases. I'm far
from convinced that CO2 is the big bad of the appocalypse that many are
making it out to be, but to suggest it has no effect at all would be
equally foolish, the burning question is whether that effect actually
amounts to anything consequential at all in the scheme of things.

Rather than all this crap with ETS's and other faulty
never-going-to-make-a-difference political schemes (and since both
parties have suggested one form or another of these I think we can
safely leave politics out of this and save it from deteriorating into
yet another slanging match) the ideal solution would be to say something
like the following.

Global warming aside since it's such a contentious issue, how about we
recognise the fact that coal-fired power generation DOES cause pollution
in a number of ways and is not sustainable into the future, whether or
not there is any realistic impact on the climate or not, but crippling
ourselves to address this is idiotic. So why not instead invest those
billions of dollars into a realistic drive towards developing
alternative energy sources, rather than paying lip service to it as we
have up until now.

Build some reactors in the short term and bring us into the 21st century
like much of the world did back in the 20th century, and then do a
shitload more to develop geothermal or 'hotrock' technology (being one
of the best placed countries in the world to benefit from this), and
research other alternatives, but lets dump all this politically correct
ETS shite and actually spend the money on something meaningful if we're
going to spend it.

If we want to lead the world in something, lets lead it in alternative
energy technology, not in meaningless lip service and policies designed
more for brownie points than any beneficial change. And if the
government invests in this research and it comes good, no reason the ROI
can't be massive for the govt by flogging it off to the rest of the
world, and there are some damn intelligent people in Australia that
would be overjoyed to find they are funded to do this sort of research.
That sort of policy I'd support, regardless of which party developed the
limited intelligence it would take to travel down such a road.

Where I work we're wacking in solar panels on one of our campuses to try
to at least meet baseline (and also as part of the opening of
alternative energy courses we want to start running there), but we've
been told that unlike residential households we wont be credited for
power we put back into the grid during shutdown situations such as
weekends, simple policies like that need to be fixed, there needs to be
more encouragement on a fair commercial basis for reducing the need for
coal-based power. In this case it's apparently down to the power company
itself, perhaps there should be legislation enforcing such compensation
(and it ain't a hand out, it's fair payment for returning power to the
grid, and would be more of an encouragement for people to do so, as
we're seeing is working in residential households). A whole heap of
simple things could make a big difference, without resorting to faulty
ETS's, and preaching global warming hysteria, and would be much better
received by the public.

On a final note I hope if you've watched Guggenheim/Gore's 'An
Inconvenient Truth' that you've also watched Durkin's 'The Great Global
Warming Swindle' as the other side of the coin. Apart from the fact
Durkin has made a career of going against politically correct
conventional wisdom in his documentaries he always does so in a
convincing manner, and overall I reckon he did a much better job with
his documentary than was done with 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
Tomasso
2009-12-09 21:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by fasgnadh
Post by bringyagrogalong
Post by Tomasso
Post by Addinall
Post by Krudd the Dud
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D
"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural
Here's a couple of interesting datasets. I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria. The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations. Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple. Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
history, and
are not a capital city. I wanted to look at data that was largely
unaffected from
UHI effect seen in the major cities. You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general. Do these data sets
look like
'global' warming is running away? I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I. The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory. I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect. Not by
him. The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).
Not wrong.
Christ! What have we got here?
A couple of thinking sceptics, quite distinct from
Minchin, Abbott, Barnaby Joyce, and the Usenet morons
CRUD, and Dr Sir John Winsome Coward.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Tweedledum and Tweedledumber ROFL
Oh, I don't think so.
Both pretty bright fellas.
Well, what can I say. Ta.

I should state my position. The analysis temperature time series I looked
at was flawed, and when I looked at it, there was no valid conclusion.
I have lots of exotic methods for teasing out subtle conclusions from
time series, and in the end, I judge that the analysis by others was
a fib (95% confidence). I can't say whether it was deliberate or not.

Other time series are saying either nothing or something. The extensive
climate models are really challenged to give much precision.

Fall back to thermodynamics, and these molecules with higher degrees
of freedom (CO2, CH4, and yes, H2O, and many more), take in and
hold more solar energy than O2 and N2. That is basic and beyond
doubt. How the system as a whole behaves to mix things up, reflect
light, do wierd things with currents, change biosystems and things
I haven't even thought of, it's not valid to take a result about shining
a light into a gas container in a calorimeter, and extrapolate it to a
planet.

All that said, I am quite in favour of major reductions in burning of
fossil fuels, whether the posited climate impact is real or a panic
bandwagon.

This is partly an ethical argument about reducing waste and improving
efficiency.

It's also about getting some of the snouts out of the trough. That issue
is on about the same level as bonus for directors of companies where
the directors fucked up. And slippery slidey arrangements between
the likes of RTA, construction companies, Macq Bank, various
ministers, and urban planners on ethical holidays (although not all
of them are bad).

It's partly about "Peak Oil" (which Mark doesn't believe, but it's an
inevitable consequence of ANY exponential growth and only the
timing is uncertain).

Just call it prudence and social responsibility. Basically a footprint
justification argument.

Tomasso.
Post by fasgnadh
So is Prof Ian Plimer who makes a good case for historic
climate change, (Part of the reason why Abbott's stupidty
"Climate Change is Crap" is such crap!) based on the geological
record, not 'climate 'models' (which have to be orders of
magnitude more complex than the ones which model an economy..
and we all saw how fucking accurate they are when the G.E.C. burst
on us unannounced.
Remember that Plimer lost his house (literally) in a legal battle with
some flakey Creationists. He was right that time (except for the
literal application of strange law which cost him badly). He's a
good thinker, and as a geologist has access to huge amounts of
strong data...
Post by fasgnadh
The thing I hate most about this argument is the fixed positions
and the dominance in the debate of total thickies..
I find myself agreeing here...
Post by fasgnadh
I have lost friends on the greenie save the earth side for
saying that I found Al Gore unimpressive, and now the current stupidity
is to dismiss all the science supporting global warming because
of some emails from one reseacher. VERY LITTLE OF THIS ARGUMENT
IS GOOD SCIENCE. And in a choice between Kevin Rudd and Al Gore
on once side and Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt on the other I prefer
to slit my own throat and bleed to death.
The medium is the message here. And the medium is alarmism and
appeal to self interest. Content of the message reverts to spin and
catch phrases.
Post by fasgnadh
Post by bringyagrogalong
So you pair of idiots believe that your "research" is right while
research by the world's scientists is wrong.
Well, I had a look at the datasets. I think that's how science is done.
At least consider the evidence.
It wouldn't be the first time one man was right and the entire
community of the learned had their heads stuck up their arses, Galileao.
I ripped into Abbott because he's a fucking thug and a hypocrital,
back flipping opportunist on climate change. Not becausue I think
the global warming argument is settled.
I thing the sea temps are critical, and the Goddard/NASA sattelite
data does indicate some slight warming.
My major concern is ocean currents. Changes in fresh ice and sea ice
melt in the Arctic are going to change a lot of the currents...
Post by fasgnadh
It's the *models* which suggest panic, and that's not enough to convince me that the
matter is an open and shut case! .. but it is enough for me to think we should be doing
everything sensible to prepare for climate change, even if it's driven by solar
activity.
Then there is the question of the anthropogenic causes, how significant
are they, what proportion of atmospheric CO2 is produced by humans .. 4%?
But I think it essential that we develop GLOBAL responses to a wide range of issues, so,
the more Copenhagens, the better we will get at it.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Ever thought to wonder why the world's governments are attending the
Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference?
Becasue when each of their respective governments (including the
previous Howard one) asked their chief scientific advisors they all said
follow the precautionary principle... the indications are that slow warming is
occurring, we could be contributing to it, but there
is no certainty. Thus they are all trying to make some changes to
the way energy is produced, without fucking their economies. Tough job.
And they can't be CERTAIN their assessment of the threat is right!
Which is why sceptics are fine by me.. they just have to convince
enough people through the evidence.. first the scientific community,
then the general public. My mind is still open.
Till then it's slight speed ahead.. the most rational course.
But as with the Ozone depletion, united action can solve complex problems. It's a new
paradigm for humanity.. global governance
is in it's infancy and faces considerable hostility.
The alternative to contention for resources (War over oil and water) is co-operative
solutions, and the mere agreement between China and the USA on united action on climate
change is easily worth a spare
Trillion, let alone the Billions proposed. I expect to see China being
the new driver of Solar panel and electric vehicle technology..
hopefully integrated mass transport and less cars, which are already
dysfunctional in large urban environments. All of these benefits are
incidental to the 'Reduce emissions' debate, but they represent my
interest.. I will be happy if Climate change concerns are the driver..
it seems fear is all that can motivate some people...
Meanwhile the tories are squabbling over the crumbs of defeat.
There are larger issues than who wins the next election is Australia.
Our footprint on the planet is too heavy.
We have already fished the richest ocean fishery, the Grand Banks, to
death, endless growth is destroying forests and rivers and sending countless species
extinct.. there are too many of us consuming too
many resources and we will need another four planets if the Chinese and Iindians all
adopt our middle class lifestyle of endless fucking consumption.
I for one am prepared to do without multiple TVs cars iPods and plastic shit if we can
get a river or two to run clean and free.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Perhaps you should forward your bullshit so they can call the whole
thing off. ROFL
What Mark presented isn't Bullshit.. it's BOM and polar region data.
The BOM's own analysis of the entire national dataset is however,
"Mean maximum temperature has increased over most
of Australia since 1950"
http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/200603/nicholls_hres.pdf
I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl
insults at each other over the data, and the conclusions.
--
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
Addinall
2009-12-09 20:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tomasso
Post by Addinall
Post by Krudd the Dud
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D
"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural
Here's a couple of interesting datasets.  I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria.  The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations.  Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple.  Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
history, and
are not a capital city.  I wanted to look at data that was largely
unaffected from
UHI effect seen in the major cities.  You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general.  Do these data sets
look like
'global' warming is running away?  I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I.  The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory.  I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect.  Not by
him.  The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).
Not wrong.
Christ!  What have we got here?
Tweedledum and Tweedledumber  ROFL
So you pair of idiots believe that your "research" is right while
research by the world's scientists is wrong.
Can't speak for Tom, but in my case, yes.
And I don't think you can speak for the world's scientists.
Rather a lot of people.
Ever thought to wonder why the world's governments are attending the
Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference?
Greed? Hypocrisy? Idiocy? Political manuvering? A holiday?
It hasn't got anything to do with the weather. THAT is obvious.
Perhaps you should forward your bullshit so they can call the whole
thing off.  ROFL
I think that is what is happening.

Mark Addinall.
Gordon Levi
2009-12-10 07:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
information.
http://www.addinall.net/antarctica
http://www.addinall.net/ausclimate/100yrural
Here's a couple of interesting datasets.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I. The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory. I think the data we used
in his
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect. Not by
him. The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster'.
You seem to have over-reacted to the troubles at the CRU. Nobody can
criticise you for not publishing your raw data. You have also avoided
any criticism of your climate model because you did not provide one.
I'm glad, for your sake, that you didn't see a disaster but I would
find it more reassuring if you provided a more detailed account of
your temperature predictions than "a crack at the data".
B J Foster
2009-12-09 19:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Krudd the Dud
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:02:52 -0800 (PST), bringyagrogalong
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D
"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D
It just depends if he's Flipping or Flopping! B^D
Jeez - you are such a moron. Clearly he's referring to the climate
change fraud - which has entrapped the entire Labor caucus - or none of
them has the balls to tell Rudderlless that the whole thing is "crap"
fasgnadh
2009-12-17 23:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by fasgnadh
Post by Krudd the Dud
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:02:52 -0800 (PST), bringyagrogalong
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D
"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D
It just depends if he's Flipping or Flopping! B^D
"In the context of his leadership this is curious as
Mr Abbott seems to have spun 180 degrees in his estimation
of human influenced climate change in as little as a
few hours / votes."
and he just keeps spinning;
"It could indeed help the outcome of the Copenhagen
climate change talks if Australia agreed in advance
not only to a carbon emission target but also a
mechanism to deliver it."
- T Abbott The Australian October 2009
"Far from being an arrogant assertion of his own views,
Turnbull’s assessment that the government’s emissions
trading scheme should ultimately be allowed to pass is his
attempt to save the Coalition from a fight it can’t win."
- T Abbott The Australian July 2009
Asked about his claim that 'Climate Change is Crap" he said
"I probably should apologise now for my errors in the past,
make a clean breast of it, and ask the public to judge me
from this point."
T Abbott 1 December 2009
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHA!
But he keeps making new mistakes as he constantly backflips to
tell people what they want to hear at that moment!
He has had more positions on Climate Change than the Karma Sutra!
"$50b bill for Abbott carbon plan"
- SMH December 7, 2009
"THE shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, has estimated the cost of
Tony Abbott's climate change policy at over $50 billion."
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
Tony Abbott's position on climate change IS CRAP! B^]
"Tony Abbott is a conviction politician" B^D
"I think all we will get is more talk" Oh The Irony! B^D
This is Mr "Climate Change is Crap" whose party spent TEN YEARS
pretending they were serious about Climate Change, proposing
an ETS at the last election, when they are Climate Change deniers.
Today he's declaring he will have a "full strong and credible policy
on the Climate Change he doesn't believe in" because they know
"Climate Change is Crap" is a politically untenable stance,
They have to keep LYING to the Australian people, PRETENDING they
take Climate Change seriously..and now Joe Hockey has revealed that
Tony Abbott's Climate Change policy will cost $50 Billion!!!! 8^o
"$50b bill for Abbott carbon plan"
- SMH December 7, 2009
In a tense confidential exchange in shadow cabinet two weeks ago, before
Mr Abbott seized the Liberal leadership, Mr Hockey challenged his
colleague's position on climate change.
According to people present during the spirited debate, Mr Hockey spoke
strongly in favour of the Liberal policy at that time - pushed by the
then leader, Malcolm Turnbull - to support the Government's amended
emissions trading scheme.
Mr Abbott was one of six in the 20-member shadow cabinet who spoke out
against the policy.
Mr Hockey challenged him by asking: "What's the alternative?"
Mr Abbott cited a list of carbon abatement measures - other than an
emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax - that Mr Turnbull had
mentioned in a speech on January 24.
Mr Hockey, exasperated, shot back: "That's $50 billion plus!"
That's a lot of taxpayer dollars to be wasted on a
policy the Lieberals simply don't believe in and will
be wasted by hypocrites who negotiated even MORE
rorts for the Big Polluters into the ETS, and then
reneged on the deal they struck with the government.
You can't trust the tory hypocrites, they sacked their
only 'Committment' politician as leader because he
actually IMPLEMENTED THEIR POLICY!!!!
he's referring to the climate change fraud
Then clearly he's as big a moron as you are, the climate is
ALWAYS changing!

And yet he is promising a Mmagic Pudding solution, which
he says won't cost anything but his shadow treasurer has
costed at $50 billion, for a problem you say he doesn't believe is real!

B^D

And you seriously think you can win an election with that claptrap? B^D

The current tory uber-right wing Lieberal leadership is exactly what the
moderate ALP needed to win the next election. Abbott knows it and so
he is playing to the tory's traditional base.. singing to the choir...

meanwhile the Aussie mainstream has no alternative to Rudd that they
can vote for.

Well done, Nick Minchin! B^]
--
"The only thing which counts is money"
"Menzies founded a small-l liberal party.
All of that has gone.
They are no longer small-l liberals.
They are now the right-wing side of politics".
- Dame Rachel Cleland Australian Story ABC 3/5/99
----------------------
"Menzies always emphasised that the Liberal
Party was a liberal party.

He specifically rejected conservatism as a force
within the Liberal Party.

Now, reading those particular Menzies speeches
today, conservatism seems to be -- well, the whole
political spectrum has moved to the right."

Ex-Liberal PM, Malcolm Fraser
B J Foster
2009-12-18 10:20:51 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by fasgnadh
And you seriously think you can win an election with that claptrap? B^D
Yes.

The GW fraud is going to blow up in Labor's faces. Ask somebody smarter
than you why Garrett stopped the dam in QLD.
bringyagrogalong
2009-12-18 10:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by B J Foster
And you seriously think you can win an election with that claptrap?  B^D
Yes.
The GW fraud is going to blow up in Labor's faces.
You mean like the Heiner affair? LOL
Post by B J Foster
Ask somebody smarter than you why Garrett stopped the dam in QLD.
So you're ruling yourself out then?
B J Foster
2009-12-18 11:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by bringyagrogalong
Post by B J Foster
Post by fasgnadh
And you seriously think you can win an election with that claptrap? B^D
Yes.
The GW fraud is going to blow up in Labor's faces.
You mean like the Heiner affair? LOL
Post by B J Foster
Ask somebody smarter than you why Garrett stopped the dam in QLD.
So you're ruling yourself out then?
So why *did* Garrett stop the dam in QLD eh?

Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
2009-12-08 13:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krudd the Dud
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:02:52 -0800 (PST), bringyagrogalong
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
You mean like this?


Post by Krudd the Dud
You really are a fool!
That he is!
Post by Krudd the Dud
And to put matters right, Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic; he
is however opposed to the Dudd's useless tax. As are most Australians!
Hope this helps!
(You leftoids are really threatened by Abbott! LOL!)
They appear to be constantly shitting their pants over Abbott! LOL!
--
http://youtu.be/_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.

"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.

"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.

"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.

"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.

"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.

"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.

"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!"
- FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.

"I don't care what you fuckers think!"
- KRudd the KRude Rat at his finest again.

"We'll just change it all when we get in."
- Garrett the carrott
B J Foster
2009-12-09 19:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by bringyagrogalong
http://tinyurl.com/ye67g3d
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Paid it back?

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...