you were gasbagging on about irrelevant bullshit
I wasnt interested

meanwhile its interesting that the same publication the SMH have actually admitted 17 years of no warming in an article from today but now they're saying they've got new models which predicted it

too funny
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-models-on-the-mark-australianled-research-finds-20140720-zuuoe.html


you people are so gullible its sad
i feel sorry for all of you however its a shame that one day your stupidity will affect me and many others

Explain your last sentence again? I still don't understand how changes towards clean energy are going to affect you adversely?

And my irrelevant bullshit was commenting on a remark very much like the one you just made. So my bullshit stems from your own I suppose.

Edited by blackmac79: 22/7/2014 01:28:57 PM

US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) = Sydney Morning Herald.

How so?

Gods. They're still letting you post? All you post is irrelevant bullshit.

a lot of people here seem to be putting faith in the 97%
can anyone explain how you remain true to this faith?

How do you stay true to the 3%?

-PB

i dont
i stay true to evidence and proof

He wouldn't make a good gambler that's for sure.

so can anyone answer my question?

So you are apart of the 97% then?

-PB

What makes the evidence of the 3% more compelling than the evidence of the 97%?

the burden of proof lays with the '97%' to prove their claims that man is changing the climate with carbon dioxide emissions
its not with me

and i use the '97%' advisedly as that's really just a manufactured number of voters who agreed to participate in the slanted and misinterpreted survey, however another topic entirely.

I only mention as I'm not identifying as part of 3%, I'm identifying as part of the community who require scientific evidence and proof of a theory.

It's hard to believe you are anything but a troll when you say this. Otherwise, you are seriously uneducated on this topic or just really deluded.

so, no one can answer my question as to when they had their epiphany?

That 97% is the number of papers endorsing anthropogenic climate change, out of thousands taking a position on climate change (just under 4000 papers*).

Edit: *up to 2011

Edited by Bullion: 28/7/2014 04:17:33 PM

however they're all opinion and there is no proof
how do I subscribe to this faith you have?

I think you will never get your head around the issue, taking this view your are agnostic towards anthropogenic climate.

well obviously evidence and proof are missing however I understand this cult requires a deal of faith

can you point me in the right direction such that I may be a born again climate alarmist?

Could you answer mine?

Here is the link regarding my previous posts: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

There has been lots of articles and papers presented in this thread that take a stance on anthropogenic climate change, the vast majority endorse anthropogenic climate change; as shown in the study I have posted above.

You just seem to ignore ALL RESEARCH on climate change, whether it does or doesn't endorse anthropogenic climate change. 97% of research that takes a position on climate change endorses anthropogenic climate change - you ignore, the other 2% that doesn't endorse anthropogenic climate change - you ignore, the 1% that are uncertain on anthropogenic climate change - you ignore.

so they 'endorse' it but dont prove it

hmm

so if 97% endorse (preach) then I should just take that in good faith?

In layman's terms, the research papers that take a stance on anthropogenic climate change (state for/against/uncertain on humans are causing climate change) - 97% of those scientific peer reviewed research papers are happy that the evidence is strong enough to state anthropogenic climate change is real (endorsing anthropogenic climate change) i.e. humans are causing climate change.

which one of those papers was the one that clinched it for you?

Using Russell's Teapot to disprove climate change :lol:

Snowing today in ballarat. must be all that melted antarctic ice

29 today in Brisbane \:d/

apparently Gillard recently purchased a house a few streets back from the coast

I assume as an investment as she expects it to be waterfront property in a few years

Or she couldn't afford a waterfront property