|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
paladisious wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:Ridiculous. Disagreements shouldn't end in bans. I'd rather I didn't have to do it myself, I'm always against over moderation, but I was answering his questions over and again but he was still attacking me regardless; it had to end somewhere. It's only a short one for him to cool off, I'm sure he'll be back to his old Ricey self in no time. Edited by paladisious: 1/7/2015 11:01:36 PM I'll go back to my original point that there were peanuts lining up sticking the boot in who added nothing of value and yet seem to be left to carry on regardless. As for him attacking you directly you could have just ignored him. I haven't replied to a crackers post since about page 3 of this thread and in other threads for well over a year. It reads to me that you kept on engaging him in order to make sure you could ban him.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
Munrubenmuz wrote:paladisious wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:Ridiculous. Disagreements shouldn't end in bans. I'd rather I didn't have to do it myself, I'm always against over moderation, but I was answering his questions over and again but he was still attacking me regardless; it had to end somewhere. It's only a short one for him to cool off, I'm sure he'll be back to his old Ricey self in no time. Edited by paladisious: 1/7/2015 11:01:36 PM I'll go back to my original point that there were peanuts lining up sticking the boot in who added nothing of value and yet seem to be left to carry on regardless. As for him attacking you directly you could have just ignored him. I haven't replied to a crackers post since about page 3 of this thread and in other threads for well over a year. It reads to me that you kept on engaging him in order to make sure you could ban him. Yeah I get what you are saying totally, but at the end of the day we all represent ourselves on here, and he had his chances to act in a more appropriate way. I do reject the part of your post where you said that I should have just ignored him for attacking me however, because then I'd be setting a precedent for him to attack anyone else, and the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. Actually, I dislike clicking on the "suspend user" button very much, but that's how it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
The forum's collective IQ has just been boosted. Noice.
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
HOLY FUCKEN SHIT :LOL:
I didn't read the past 5 pages before I posted the above response, but FMD I was right about him being the dickhead behind that site. FFS :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Edited by Draupnir: 2/7/2015 03:27:20 AM
|
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Key points In response to Poptech (not so much for Poptech, but others on here):
Scepticism is founded within the scientific method. The peer review process is a brutal and rather disheartening process. The key is 'peer' as in one's intellectual peers within the specific scientific field - blogs do not have 'peers' and hence are not even close to the true definition of scepticism, contextually speaking.
Energy & Environment was a 'journal' outed several years ago as having a chief editor with an agenda against action on AGW, with very sloppy to non-existent methods of peer review. I am unaware of any prominent scientists practicing in pertinent fields of climatology who has published in that journal in the last 5 years. Richard Tol is an economist, not a climatologist.
I might not get to decide that Energy & Environment is an irrelevant journal, but I'll let the evidence and the words of 'peers' in relevant fields decide.
Regarding well known dissenters Richard Lindzen & John Christy (did they appear at the latest Heartland Institute Conference?), are you able to provide links to papers where they are the PRIMARY author on an AGW paper in the last 10 years?
Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 2/7/2015 03:41:37 AM
|
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:by the way, I raised this 97% topic here nearly a year ago. The John Cook paper was not the first to cover the issue of 'consensus'. Interestingly, I have heard it stated that there is now greater scientific consensus on the link between increased average global temperatures and anthropogenic activities, than there is linking HIV to AIDS.
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
PopTech
Joined: 7/1/2015
Murdoch Rags Ltd
Joined: 7/1/2015
Get to fuck you wanker :lol:
Edited by Draupnir: 2/7/2015 03:39:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:PopTech
Joined: 7/1/2015
Murdoch Rags Ltd
Joined: 7/1/2015
Get to fuck you wanker :lol: Baseless accusations. [-x
|
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Regarding the claims of a 18 year pause in rising temperatures - there may have been a relative flattening in global average AIR temperatures, due to a 'cherry picked' base year of 1998 when there was a very strong El Niño event, but average sea temperatures have been rising unabated in this period.
It's also worth noting that, on balance of probabilities, 2014 was the hottest year on record, based on average global air temperatures.
In all sciences including those that have the luxury of repeatability of experiments (physics being the top of the 'luxury tree'), there is no such things as proof just levels of probability.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Oh look Munrubenmuz white knightting ricey . If I didnt know better ill say he is another of ricey's multis
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
I wonder how long until dedicated climate change forums start linking to this thread due to it's deep and robust discussion...
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Mining and Energy lobby groups will keep the progress of green energy slow for a couple more decades, but I do note that big Energy companies seem to be looking at and investing research into renewables.
I guess the writings on the wall and no-one wants to be caught empty handed if a government starts to really push for alternative energy. Better to have all bases covered to reach emission targets ect....
Whether you believe the 97% or the 3% it probably wont matter as the majority will rule here.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
The big companies have to move with the times. They cant be caught on not doing anything
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:I do note that big Energy companies seem to be looking at and investing research into renewables. They need to really. Even if you deny that burning fossil fuels for energy is doing anything, there is a limited supply. The World Coal Association reckons there's about 118 years of coal left at current levels of production. That sounds like a lot but energy demands are increasing as some very large third world countries are developing. Maybe this means that they'll be needed at large scale in 30 or 40 years rather than 10-ish (by current emissions targets) but it's still going to be needed. That's of course ignoring the impact on prices supply and demand will put on using coal for energy and there will be a natural rather than "artificial" tipping point where the renewables will become cheaper from an economic standpoint. This is why, apart from the climate impacts that are clear from the studies, the government should be doing all it can to help Australia innovate in this area as it will be a very lucrative industry to be a world leader in the not too distant future.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:I do note that big Energy companies seem to be looking at and investing research into renewables. They need to really. Even if you deny that burning fossil fuels for energy is doing anything, there is a limited supply. The World Coal Association reckons there's about 118 years of coal left at current levels of production. That sounds like a lot but energy demands are increasing as some very large third world countries are developing. Maybe this means that they'll be needed at large scale in 30 or 40 years rather than 10-ish (by current emissions targets) but it's still going to be needed. That's of course ignoring the impact on prices supply and demand will put on using coal for energy and there will be a natural rather than "artificial" tipping point where the renewables will become cheaper from an economic standpoint. This is why, apart from the climate impacts that are clear from the studies, the government should be doing all it can to help Australia innovate in this area as it will be a very lucrative industry to be a world leader in the not too distant future. Lets just burn rainforests for energy 8-[
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Climate Change is happening - even if you don't agree with the majority of scientists and major scientific institutions that humans are having a significant impact on the climate, most will be affected in some way. Arguing, is it 97% or whatever (it's a large majority even if you try and discredit 30% of the papers :p ) is just beating around the bush. Quote:Insurance Council Welcomes Climate Change Report on Sea Level Rise
November 27, 2014
The Insurance Council of New Zealand welcomes the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report on climate change and rising sea levels released today.
“The report adds to the overwhelming evidence that the sea-level will continue rising and lead to increased flooding, damage and social disruption. It’s sobering that most New Zealanders alive today will see sea-level rise by at least 30cm regardless of what action is taken globally on greenhouse gas emissions,” says Insurance Council Chief Executive Tim Grafton.
“With this certainty in mind, there needs to be a collective long-term view of how to reduce the impact and that means starting to plan and invest now and progressively over the years. Everyone has a part to play – central and local government, business, communities and individuals,” he says.
“The next report the Environment Commissioner will be releasing in 2015 will pin-point which towns and cities will be affected. This will help inform the value of assets at risk and should provide another compelling reason to invest now to save the much greater costs after disaster strikes.”
Earlier this month ICNZ released a position paper Protecting New Zealand from Natural Hazards which set out a 15-point plan to encourage a much stronger focus on risk reduction not just from sea-level rise. http://www.icnz.org.nz/insurance-council-welcomes-climate-change-report-on-sea-level-rise/Insurance premiums will rise to reflect the risk due to the affects of climate change, local and central govt will have to invest to mitigate changes associated with climate change possibly increasing rates and/or targeted taxes to finance changes. These increased costs should also at least provide a financial incentive for those stuck in the mud types to adjust their behaviour at an individual level.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Here's climate change in action, an effing cyclone in July lol. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:mcjules wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:I do note that big Energy companies seem to be looking at and investing research into renewables. They need to really. Even if you deny that burning fossil fuels for energy is doing anything, there is a limited supply. The World Coal Association reckons there's about 118 years of coal left at current levels of production. That sounds like a lot but energy demands are increasing as some very large third world countries are developing. Maybe this means that they'll be needed at large scale in 30 or 40 years rather than 10-ish (by current emissions targets) but it's still going to be needed. That's of course ignoring the impact on prices supply and demand will put on using coal for energy and there will be a natural rather than "artificial" tipping point where the renewables will become cheaper from an economic standpoint. This is why, apart from the climate impacts that are clear from the studies, the government should be doing all it can to help Australia innovate in this area as it will be a very lucrative industry to be a world leader in the not too distant future. Lets just burn rainforests for energy 8-[ Lucky the audience now has the intelligence to detect sarcasm ;)
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:benelsmore wrote:mcjules wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:I do note that big Energy companies seem to be looking at and investing research into renewables. They need to really. Even if you deny that burning fossil fuels for energy is doing anything, there is a limited supply. The World Coal Association reckons there's about 118 years of coal left at current levels of production. That sounds like a lot but energy demands are increasing as some very large third world countries are developing. Maybe this means that they'll be needed at large scale in 30 or 40 years rather than 10-ish (by current emissions targets) but it's still going to be needed. That's of course ignoring the impact on prices supply and demand will put on using coal for energy and there will be a natural rather than "artificial" tipping point where the renewables will become cheaper from an economic standpoint. This is why, apart from the climate impacts that are clear from the studies, the government should be doing all it can to help Australia innovate in this area as it will be a very lucrative industry to be a world leader in the not too distant future. Lets just burn rainforests for energy 8-[ Lucky the audience now has the intelligence to detect sarcasm ;) Wait? was that sarcastic too ?????????? :shock: :-s 8-[
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:mcjules wrote:benelsmore wrote:mcjules wrote:Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:I do note that big Energy companies seem to be looking at and investing research into renewables. They need to really. Even if you deny that burning fossil fuels for energy is doing anything, there is a limited supply. The World Coal Association reckons there's about 118 years of coal left at current levels of production. That sounds like a lot but energy demands are increasing as some very large third world countries are developing. Maybe this means that they'll be needed at large scale in 30 or 40 years rather than 10-ish (by current emissions targets) but it's still going to be needed. That's of course ignoring the impact on prices supply and demand will put on using coal for energy and there will be a natural rather than "artificial" tipping point where the renewables will become cheaper from an economic standpoint. This is why, apart from the climate impacts that are clear from the studies, the government should be doing all it can to help Australia innovate in this area as it will be a very lucrative industry to be a world leader in the not too distant future. Lets just burn rainforests for energy 8-[ Lucky the audience now has the intelligence to detect sarcasm ;) Wait? was that sarcastic too ?????????? :shock: :-s 8-[ Duh of course it wasn't....... ;)
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Awfully quiet on the PopTech front :lol: -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:Awfully quiet on the PopTech front :lol:
-PB I'm still shocked that I was so spot on :lol: So farken embarrassing for Andrew Ricey.
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Andrew Rice Clay has a nice ring to it.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Have a Google around for Poptech and the random postings in comment sections of many websites :lol: All the same shit rofl. EDIT: Keks -> https://ipka.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/denialist-populartechnology-net-denier-website/-PB Edited by paulbagzFC: 3/7/2015 09:31:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
:lol:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
:lol: do ricey is andrew k ? :lol: he has form too
He has been on numerous forums and everyone of them have barred him due to his incessant trolling
|
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
so with this logic, we can have global warming and only straight marriages 
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
"Impartial" :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
It's hilarious that "popped rice" regularly bans dissenting users on his forum under the guise of being trolls yet on here he blows up about silencing criticism via the same methods :lol:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:It's hilarious that "popped rice" regularly bans dissenting users on his forum under the guise of being trolls yet on here he blows up about silencing criticism via the same methods :lol: whats the saying ? Do as I say not what I do
|
|
|
|