I dont know, every time we have a bushfire, a flood or a lake dries up in summer its because of global warming

yet when we have cold weather events you can hear a pin drop

I've heard both sides do it. Aparently last years polar vortex was evidence not only that global warming isn't real but that the earth is getting colder.

[size=8]Adelaide wakes to its coldest August morning in 126 years[/size]
Updated about an hour agoMon 4 Aug 2014, 11:27am

Adelaide has woken to its coldest start to an August day in 126 years and it was colder across other parts of South Australia.


At 6:30am (ACST) the temperature was down to [size=8]0.9 degrees Celsius[/size].

The weather bureau said it was the[size=8] coldest August morning since 1888[/size].

It was also the coldest day Adelaide has experienced in any month in six years.

Senior forecaster Mark Anolak said the low temperature has been brought on by cold air from the Antarctic moving over Adelaide.

"Under a ridge of high pressure that we are experiencing at the moment, clear skies have led to very cold temperatures over the last couple of days," he said.

"Murray Bridge has had its coldest ever start to the day in August at -2.7 degrees this morning."

Most of regional South Australia woke to cold and frosty conditions.

The weather bureau said it got down to -5.6C in Renmark, just above freezing in Lameroo and -3.9C in Loxton.

Clear, sunny skies lifted the temperature as the morning went on.

Australia has experienced quite a bit of record cold weather this winter, not one day
how could this happen if we're decades into runaway global warming...how can this be possible

yes keep moving the goalposts to suit your fantasy

[size=8]Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past[/size]
BY CHARLES ONIANS [size=8]Monday 20 March 2000[/size]

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.

Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".

Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change - into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".

Not any more, it seems.

Judging by his intelligence, ricecrackers probably never went to school.

shoot the messenger when actual evidence destroys your fantasy
realise i'm doing this for your own good, whereas pride seems to be a factor in your fanatical cases

let me ask a direct question of the alarmist fanatics here...
what is this 97% figure I keep hearing about? can you explain to me what this means in simple terms?

shoot the messenger when actual evidence destroys your fantasy
realise i'm doing this for your own good, whereas pride seems to be a factor in your fanatical cases

let me ask a direct question of the alarmist fanatics here...
what is this 97% figure I keep hearing about? can you explain to me what this means in simple terms?

97 doctors say you have cancer, 3 say you don't. Act or don't act?

You can have your own opinions but you can't have you own facts.

thing is it's actually higher than 97%. Of all the peer reviewed studies since 2012 something like 10833 of 10835 accept climate change.

To really make the debate more accurate, have 9998 scientists against 2. John Oliver would need a bigger studio first

This would be a pretty sweet solution though
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/12648/20140515/solar-panel-roads-electrical-engineer-introduces-new-powered-roadways.htm

Did you even read your own posted article? It's all spelt out there in black and white.

As I said the 97% figure may well be refuted in the future but as yet your article proves absolutely nothing.

You have pretty much tried to rubbish their claim of 97% consensus (which I know, I know, is not science) with an article about a legal stoush to stop the release of the data in a study. (Why they'd want to do that I don't know.) But in any case the article refutes nothing.

It's as close to non-news as you can get.

Try again.

The claim also that 'but i'd challenge you to find one that demonstrates unequivocal evidence of global warming caused by human carbon dioxide emissions much less actual climate change' is a complete fallacy of a statement because science is a practise whereby it is never 100% certain and never a rigid practise. Scientific papers would always work and the majority of scientific papers would find a correlation coefficient in excess of 0.9 in favour of an increase in carbon emissions (and other gases that cause climate change) by man and increase in temperature and environment damage. That often quoted 97% of papers would all reject the null hypothesis of man made emissions not causing climate chance with a confidence of over 95%. Now if we put the 1000s of papers published from different parts of the world all coming to the same conclusion the likelihood of the conclusion would have such a high certainty that it would be insane not to accept the current understanding as fact. Ive dumbed down the explanation a bit but think itll still be easily dismissed

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

We find that
•   66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,
•   32.6% endorsed AGW,
•   0.7% rejected AGW and
•   0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
[size=8](31.7% of total)[/size]



(29286 authors included in above abstracts)



In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. (which authors did you invite? Which authors responded?)



(So 2142 out of the original 11944 abstracts or 17.9% of abstracts included in phase 2)
(And 1189 of the original 29286 authors responded to rate their own papers, or [size=8]4% of the original authors[/size])


Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%).
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article