ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
look at the perennial victim start to level the person insults now. showing your true colours.
observed evidence trumps unproven theory every time
|
|
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
pretty sure you've used examples of weather in an attempt prove your own fantasy. you cant have it both ways.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:look at the perennial victim start to level the person insults now. showing your true colours.
observed evidence trumps unproven theory every time Ive stated your ignorance on the difference between weather and climate. Thats not a personal insult thats just pointing our your ignorance over the difference. Address the argument rather than using your common tactic of diverting the argument on semantics. ricecrackers wrote:pretty sure you've used examples of weather in an attempt prove your own fantasy. you cant have it both ways. Thats hearsay with no actual evidence of it. please explain to me in your own words how it can be possible that Brisbane is experiencing coldest temperature in 103 years if the surface temperature has been rising all of this time and continues to. then explain to me why we should be concerned to do anything about it no links, I want to hear your understanding of science and logic
|
|
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:#globalwarming Quote:[size=8]Brisbane records coldest morning in 103 years[/size] Updated Sun 13 Jul 2014, 12:22am AEST  PHOTO: Barbed wire is covered in ice after a cold morning in Stanthorpe. (Instagram: @goodbeermatt) Brisbane has recorded its coldest morning in 103 years, with low temperatures also being felt across the rest of Queensland. The weather bureau says the state's capital dropped to 2.6 degrees Celsius just before 7:00am (AEST) on Saturday. Bureau spokeswoman Michelle Berry said it has been exceptionally cold and temperatures are still dropping. "[It's been] the coldest morning since 1911, so it's quite a record there," she said. Clermont in central Queensland had record-low temperatures on Friday, but broke records again on Saturday morning with the temperature dropping down to -4.5C. Five coldest cities in Queensland Oakey: -6.1 Warwick: -5.9 Kingaroy: -5.7 Applethorpe: -5.4 Dalby: -5.0 Blackall recorded lows of -2.0C, Roma saw temperatures of -6.6C, and Oakey was down to -6.1C. Further south in the state, Kingaroy reached -5.7C, Dalby dropped to -5.0C, Applethorpe was -5.4C, and Warwick recorded -5.9C. Ms Berry said dry and clear conditions, as well as light winds, have caused temperatures to plummet but said mornings should start to warm up next week. 100 years of temperatures Use our interactive map to explore 100 years of annual average temperatures across Australia. "I would keep the doonas at the ready in the morning," she said. "I don't think we'll see temperatures drop as much as we saw [on Saturday] morning but we will see temperatures well and truly below their July averages. "But then we'll actually see a change in air mass and with that increasing cloud we'll see those minimum temperatures on the rise." In New South Wales, Glen Innes has recorded temperatures of -11.3C, while Thredbo recorded a low of -4.1C. Victoria's Mount Baw Baw saw temperatures drop to -3.6C. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-12/brisbane-records-coldest-morning-103-years/5591890 Well that seals it then. 
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
17 years of no warming seals it
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:look at the perennial victim start to level the person insults now. showing your true colours.
observed evidence trumps unproven theory every time Ive stated your ignorance on the difference between weather and climate. Thats not a personal insult thats just pointing our your ignorance over the difference. Address the argument rather than using your common tactic of diverting the argument on semantics. ricecrackers wrote:pretty sure you've used examples of weather in an attempt prove your own fantasy. you cant have it both ways. Thats hearsay with no actual evidence of it. please explain to me in your own words how it can be possible that Brisbane is experiencing coldest temperature in 103 years if the surface temperature has been rising all of this time and continues to. then explain to me why we should be concerned to do anything about it no links, I want to hear your understanding of science and logic So youre basically sick of me providing actual evidence for my claims. Firstly as just stated theres a difference between weather and climate. One very cold day does not the whole climate isnt changing. If the long term trend of temperature is increasing, then yes the climate is changing. Its also very simplistic to say because it is very cold in Brisbane on one day doesnt mean that the climate of the globe is not warming. Youre confusing weather with climate and extrapolating Brisbane as a measure for the globe. Thats it in simplest terms. Also you state ' surface temperature has been rising all of this time and continues to' That also shows a misunderstanding. Your comment implies a linear increase in temperature but a trend in global warming is not a simple linear progression.You seem to think global warming is a simple straight line increase rather than a data set whereby the trendline is a linear progression. What this mean is some data falls below the trendline but more data tends to be above the trendline. For further reading (not that youll press on it) thatll give a more detailed explanation into the relationship of cold weather and climate change: http://www.salon.com/2014/01/07/this_freezing_weather_could_be_a_sign_of_global_warming_newscred/http://e360.yale.edu/feature/is_weird_winter_weather_related_to_climate_change/2742/ i just told you no links i'm not interesting in reading your anti science propaganda articles i want to hear your understanding
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:Hahahahaahahaha you make me laugh. 'anti science propaganda' what? And I did provide two paragraphs of explanation. [size=8]You have a tendancy to just discredit arguments or evidence when you dont like it[/size]. thats exactly what you're doing and in response you provide links to opinion piece articles and theories. these are not science. evidence is lacking on your part scientific proof is repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. you have neither, but instead you continually cite 97% consensus as your proof, which is merely a vote of vested interested parties. science is not a vote. thats politics.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Guess your credentials on the matter is also vote of an interested party and not science :lol: -PB
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat wrote:Hahahahaahahaha you make me laugh. 'anti science propaganda' what? And I did provide two paragraphs of explanation. [size=8]You have a tendancy to just discredit arguments or evidence when you dont like it[/size]. thats exactly what you're doing and in response you provide links to opinion piece articles and theories. these are not science. evidence is lacking on your part scientific proof is repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. you have neither, but instead you continually cite 97% consensus as your proof, which is merely a vote of vested interested parties. science is not a vote. thats politics. You tell me Im discrediting evidence when you discredited the many scientific articles Ive provided. You also discredit my explanation for why your article is not proof. You discredit the scientific consensus because you claim theyre all part of the 'vested interested parties.' You discredit the science and then attempt to lecture me on what science is. And then to top it all off you claim the scientific view that I have is just politics and your 'opinion' on a scientific matter that lacks any scientific credibility is somehow a superior view to the scientific view. The hypocrisy on your part is amusing. you keep droning on in a loop i'll keep repeating until you understand SCIENCE IS NOT CONSENSUS CONSENSUS IS POLITICS
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat wrote:Hahahahaahahaha you make me laugh. 'anti science propaganda' what? And I did provide two paragraphs of explanation. [size=8]You have a tendancy to just discredit arguments or evidence when you dont like it[/size]. thats exactly what you're doing and in response you provide links to opinion piece articles and theories. these are not science. evidence is lacking on your part scientific proof is repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. you have neither, but instead you continually cite 97% consensus as your proof, which is merely a vote of vested interested parties. science is not a vote. thats politics. You tell me Im discrediting evidence when you discredited the many scientific articles Ive provided. You also discredit my explanation for why your article is not proof. You discredit the scientific consensus because you claim theyre all part of the 'vested interested parties.' You discredit the science and then attempt to lecture me on what science is. And then to top it all off you claim the scientific view that I have is just politics and your 'opinion' on a scientific matter that lacks any scientific credibility is somehow a superior view to the scientific view. The hypocrisy on your part is amusing. you keep droning on in a loop i'll keep repeating until you understand SCIENCE IS NOT CONSENSUS CONSENSUS IS POLITICS says they person who has no grasp of what science is. if the evidence is overwhelming then science will adopt that view, and only when the evidence is overwhelming. But its also open to critical thinking when the critical thinking has evidence, which you lack. If that critical evidence becomes overwhelming then science will change its view. The current overwhelming view is that climate change is real and man is at the centre of this. Why else is the majority of climate change research on the effect of climate change rather than if it exists. Of course theres no point explaining this to you because youre so invested into your conspiracy theories no amount of logic will change your mind science doesnt "adopt a view". adopting a view is purely subjective. there is research because the money is flowing to it. its an investment in the scam to keep the scam going. you talk about critical thinking but have never had a critical thought in your life. you just copy and paste links and articles. you cant explain any of it yourself because you dont understand it. you dont even have a scientific background. you've simply been indoctrinated by schooling. this much is obvious and yet you cant let it go. you're practically OCD on this issue and you're talking a lot of crap
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat wrote:Hahahahaahahaha you make me laugh. 'anti science propaganda' what? And I did provide two paragraphs of explanation. [size=8]You have a tendancy to just discredit arguments or evidence when you dont like it[/size]. thats exactly what you're doing and in response you provide links to opinion piece articles and theories. these are not science. evidence is lacking on your part scientific proof is repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. you have neither, but instead you continually cite 97% consensus as your proof, which is merely a vote of vested interested parties. science is not a vote. thats politics. You tell me Im discrediting evidence when you discredited the many scientific articles Ive provided. You also discredit my explanation for why your article is not proof. You discredit the scientific consensus because you claim theyre all part of the 'vested interested parties.' You discredit the science and then attempt to lecture me on what science is. And then to top it all off you claim the scientific view that I have is just politics and your 'opinion' on a scientific matter that lacks any scientific credibility is somehow a superior view to the scientific view. The hypocrisy on your part is amusing. you keep droning on in a loop i'll keep repeating until you understand SCIENCE IS NOT CONSENSUS CONSENSUS IS POLITICS says they person who has no grasp of what science is. if the evidence is overwhelming then science will adopt that view, and only when the evidence is overwhelming. But its also open to critical thinking when the critical thinking has evidence, which you lack. If that critical evidence becomes overwhelming then science will change its view. The current overwhelming view is that climate change is real and man is at the centre of this. Why else is the majority of climate change research on the effect of climate change rather than if it exists. Of course theres no point explaining this to you because youre so invested into your conspiracy theories no amount of logic will change your mind science doesnt "adopt a view". adopting a view is purely subjective. there is research because the money is flowing to it. its an investment in the scam to keep the scam going. you talk about critical thinking but have never had a critical thought in your life. you just copy and paste links and articles. you cant explain any of it yourself because you dont understand it. you dont even have a scientific background. you've simply been indoctrinated by schooling. this much is obvious and yet you cant let it go. you're practically OCD on this issue and you're talking a lot of crap You seem to know a lot about me without ever meeting me. Do you have a scientific background to be able to be making such claims about science? If you had a basic understanding of science or even logic, youd know that statements should be backed up with evidence and facts. Read any scientific paper on any matter and itll consistency reference other papers and research to provide evidence for why its taking such research and how its findings compare to past research. Theres no point making an argument if you cant back it up with evidence, as Ive been doing. To discredit me as not having an understanding, and making assumptions about who I am and what Ive studied seems to be part of your consistent tactic to discredit what Im saying and try side track onto something that you think is easier to argue from your view. This is never a topic with scope for opinions. Its a scientific matter and the sheer volume of research says one thing. Theres no scope for your opinion in this matter, especially one so lacking in any proper evidence. Come back when you can actually abck up an argument with fact. I know a bullshit artist when I speak to one and I'm quite certain I know more about the field of science than you do. listen to yourself. you sound like an evangelistic religious nutjob where this fake 'science' is your religion you talk about "its a scientific matter" like only the clergy of your religion have a right to dictate you've been completely indoctrinated into it like some extremist and you dont even realise it.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
evidence by "RedKat's" definition is pasting a link to some sketchy opinion piece in salon magazine #-o
meanwhile ignoring 17 years evidence of no warming and major weather events in the USA becoming more benign in last couple of years
and if the evidence doesnt fit the theory, change the theory and the narrative on the fly
yeah real scientific :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
tbitm
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Kentucky State Senator Brandon Smith wrote:As you [Energy & Environment Cabinet official] sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I won't get into the debate about climate change but I'll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There's no factories on Mars that I'm aware of.
Well that's quite a compelling case the republican makes. It's probably just a coincidence that he happens to own a coal mine.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
same as eugenics in the 1920's
most scientists, NGOs and government institutions supported it because thats where the money was
|
|
|
|
|
Jong Gabe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Which is more believable ricecrackers? Coal companies spreading propaganda with their large amounts of cash to keep their business alive, or scientists who rely on the government and the public for funding of their projects to lie about the fact that our planet is in danger? Edited by GabMVFC: 17/7/2014 09:56:02 AM
E
|
|
|
|
|
Roar #1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.4K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:evidence by "RedKat's" definition is pasting a link to some sketchy opinion piece in salon magazine #-o
meanwhile ignoring 17 years evidence of no warming and major weather events in the USA becoming more benign in last couple of years
and if the evidence doesnt fit the theory, change the theory and the narrative on the fly
yeah real scientific :roll: That's Excactly what you do you dumb tony abbot :lol:
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
GabMVFC wrote:Which is more believable ricecrackers? Coal companies spreading propaganda with their large amounts of cash to keep their business alive, or scientists who rely on the government and the public for funding of their projects to lie about the fact that our planet is in danger?
Edited by GabMVFC: 17/7/2014 09:56:02 AM coal companies spreading propaganda? do you have any idea who their main competition is and who stands to benefit from coal being less competitive? do you have any idea what their budget is in comparison? i'll give you 10 minutes to think about it
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Is it gas crackers? It is, isn't it?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:Is it gas crackers?
It is, isn't it?
indeed they are taxed at a lower rate and oil too which is the same industry where incidentally transport fuel is exempt
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:Is it gas crackers?
It is, isn't it?
indeed they are taxed at a lower rate and oil too which is the same industry where incidentally transport fuel is exempt I'm taking the piss. You've said this many times. Just like your "science isn't consensus" line which is patently absurd as I've shown you before but anyway carry on. I only visit here to see who you're arguing with this time.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:Is it gas crackers?
It is, isn't it?
indeed they are taxed at a lower rate and oil too which is the same industry where incidentally transport fuel is exempt What prize does Munru get? If it's any good I wanna join in next time. P.S. Hoping prizes relate to something to do with fish and chips, outback Australia and be-headings of some sort. -PB
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:Is it gas crackers?
It is, isn't it?
indeed they are taxed at a lower rate and oil too which is the same industry where incidentally transport fuel is exempt I'm taking the piss. You've said this many times. Just like your "science isn't consensus" line which is patently absurd as I've shown you before but anyway carry on. I only visit here to see who you're arguing with this time. i'm not interested in carrying on with you you've demonstrated in the past you're incapable of rational thought on this issue, among quite a few of the other cultists here
|
|
|
|
|
Roar #1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.4K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:Is it gas crackers?
It is, isn't it?
indeed they are taxed at a lower rate and oil too which is the same industry where incidentally transport fuel is exempt I'm taking the piss. You've said this many times. Just like your "science isn't consensus" line which is patently absurd as I've shown you before but anyway carry on. I only visit here to see who you're arguing with this time. i'm not interested in carrying on with you you've demonstrated in the past you're incapable of rational thought on this issue, among quite a few of the other cultists here Rice crackers, what religion do you associate with?
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Roar #1 wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:Is it gas crackers?
It is, isn't it?
indeed they are taxed at a lower rate and oil too which is the same industry where incidentally transport fuel is exempt I'm taking the piss. You've said this many times. Just like your "science isn't consensus" line which is patently absurd as I've shown you before but anyway carry on. I only visit here to see who you're arguing with this time. i'm not interested in carrying on with you you've demonstrated in the past you're incapable of rational thought on this issue, among quite a few of the other cultists here Rice crackers, what religion do you associate with? I'll tell you if you give me your bank account details
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
strike that, they'd be useless to me anyway as I suspect you're penniless
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
many many or just many?
make up your mind
you've linked a lot of blogs, sketchy magazines and blatant propaganda
and yet you still cannot provide any scientific explanation to my questions yourself because you're scientifically illiterate
your empty mind is fertile ground for marxist programming
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
you are scientifically illiterate
you're a copy paste expert just like joffa
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:Im scientifically illiterate for using scientific literature to back up my arguments?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You dont have an argument as you're incapable of forming one. Dont you get it? You're completely incapable of discernment of facts from fiction... of quality from trash
|
|
|
|
|
Roar #1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.4K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:strike that, they'd be useless to me anyway as I suspect you're penniless :lol: Yeah nah :lol:
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat exposed redux RedKat wrote:
You're focusing on one data set that proves your evidence and giving it more weight that the much much larger weight of evidence in the contrary. [size=8]Even your own source acknowledges anthropomorphic climate change [/size]is real but you just pick the parts from your own source that suit you. Thats the definition of madness - when no volume of evidence will make you change.
Edited by RedKat: 13/7/2014 10:14:12 AM
RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:RedKat wrote:ricecrackers wrote:yawn @ RedKat
its anthropogenic not anthropmorphic :oops:
seriously just quit it on this subject So youve got nothing to say so you point out a typo I made early in the morning. You're exceptionally close minded so youve just resorted to insults because youve got nothing left to say. Ive picked your only 'evidence' apart showing the body still sides on my side of the debate. its not a typo, you used completely the wrong word why would I want to continue a discussion with someone who clearly has no idea... Yes I made a mistake at 1AM clearly thinking of a different work. That doesnt invalidate anything Ive said. I could go through your posts and probably find a mistake as well but I dont need to sidetrack the discussion because Im not the one with no evidence. Ive lost count of the time Ive given a lot of evidence and youve ignored it and found something else to argue about. Clearly a sign of the close minded views refusing to accept the evidence. The fact of the matter though is you cant provide sufficient evidence because there simply isnt sufficient scientific evidence for your side of the argument (and if it was that would be the consensus of the scientific community and myself).
|
|
|
|