:)

On record counts for shit when the earth is 4bil years old ;)

- 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming
- Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing
- Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans
- Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response

None of that is in contention. However, every time we have a hot day some dickhead comes out saying 'omg global warming'.

Also ancient climate cycles are totally relevant. However, the accuracy is in contention given our inability to accurately measure them.

I personally love people who say the recent intense storms are a product of climate change. Reality is, we haven't seen anything remotely near the worst the climate has to offer in the last 100 years. But don't tell alarmists that :lol:

Engineers remind me of the saying 'a little (scientific) knowledge is dangerous'....

Yes this is absolutely true.
Also, there are quite a lot of these so called scientific experts in unrelated fields that also question the wisdom of climatologists thinking they're on equal footing. Its laughable. Many of them are just computer programmers or construction engineers and they think they understand the nature of climatology. Often they're the ones the desperate deniers cobble together (with handsome remuneration I might add) to produce denier surveys with the scientifically endorsed stamp of approval. :) :) :)

ah the wonderful world of the Koch brothers. :)

Edited by trident: 9/1/2016 07:12:15 PM

:lol: a construction engineer is worth 200 pHD students who regurgitate google.

FWIW i'm not a construction engineer.

It's pathetic how you two fat on ignoring the fact that i'm not a climate change denier. It's would be funny if you two weren't the same person :lol:

Typical uni student :lol:

I deal with Dr's of engineering all the time and they all have the same 'i'm better than you because I wasted an extra 4 years of my life' attitude :lol:

Well done, you can regurgitate the internet.

A global warming denier is one that denies the science, 1%.
Using the word 'alarmist', that I have seen repeated ad nauseum throughout the pseudoscientific right wing (goes without saying) blogosphere, means not accepting the science 100%.
When you are a 'peer', then you can question.

Anyone with curiosity can question.

Saying people have no right to ask questions because they're not scientists is an elitist and childish attitude.

I think you need to better understand what 'standing on the shoulders of giants' means, in this instance in reference to climatology and anthropogenic global warming science.
The concept was first proposed in 1896 & the evidence for it was discovered after research in 1934.
That's over 80 years of ever expanding research, to follow where the evidence has lead.
It's the height of arrogance & ignorance to question it, from a position of relative illiteracy, which most in society are.

Ignorance is not questioning the data. Arrogance (and intellectual elitism) is denying people the ability to ask questions and essentially forcing them into blindly accepting what they are told. Blindly accepting data is ignorant. Not asking how data is obtained and what correlations or inferences are made to 'finalise' data is ignorant. I do not for one second deny anthropogenic climate change (get this through your thick fucking skull) but the magnitude has always been in question. Data recording has limitations and sometimes that data will plot outside a standard deviation from the trend. I always wonder what your science friends do with that non-conforming data ;)

A funny story was in year 12 physics. I was always led to believe that the ozone layer was a consistent 'layer' so to speak. We were taught about the changing nature of the Ozone layer and how weak spots would form naturally due to changing atmospheric conditions (as well as pollutants and CFC's). Imagine teaching that to all children. I bet 95% of people believe that the Ozone layer doesn't change unless cow farts which produce methane destroys it :lol:

Well that's the latest form of denial. Yes it is denial. And it is denial from the relatively illiterate, who are too insecure to admit their relative illiteracy.
I've always found it funny (sad) that those who 'question' (cause it's not questioning) the magnitude never 'question' that it's underestimated. Not surprising really, considering research shows that right wingers (who make up the bulk of the science denial) have been shown in research to be more fearful people. Which right winger have you come across has said "I think the planet is going to warm 5 to 6 degrees by 2100?". Don't worry, rhetorical 'question'.

You literally have your head so far up your own ass that you're the easiest person on this forum to troll.

You're so caught up with your scientific elitism that you are literally clueless as to me baiting you for 2 pages in this thread.

Thanks for the amusement Ricey, go back to doing your PhD or the other alpha scientists might start accusing you of being intellectually illiterate.

Just as a side note: not that you actually know what the fuck I do, but I have worked with the CSIRO to extract some cores for climate change research west of Brisbane right? Ouch, maybe keep your elite paraphrasing to a minimum so that you don't look like a complete tool :)

These discussions are for the benefit of anyone reading- your choice to troll.
Your statements about the 'magnitude' are typical of global warming deniers/right wingers, so it addresses their mentality anyway. Cheers!
As mentioned before, scientists have a saying 'opinions are like arseholes - everyone's got one'!

It's not a discussion because anyone who even slightly disagrees with you gets called all sorts of names you petulant child. All people get to read is you slagging off right wingers and anyone who isn't a scientist.

That saying is not restricted to science.

As for 'magnitudes', I am curious what sort of correlations they make, regardless of whether they under or over estimate.

In addition to the IPCC reports, there are plenty of government based websites that are freely available to educate anyone who chooses to not be wilfully ignorant about anthropogenic global warming and their confidence intervals/error estimates.

:) Now he's calling you "Ricey" rags. Seems to be the standard go to insult of the defeated around here.

You are a piece of shit.

I am guessing that now when you use blue font, that's when you're NOT trolling...?

Blue font is for sarcasm. Trolling is just winding you up because your responses are so predictable.

Seriously, in your above post there was no need to mention the word ignorance. All you had to say was: if you're interested in reading you can look up this.....

But no, you have to show how superior you are at every opportunity. Insecure much? :lol:

Just date already

All the way back in 1912, an Australian mining journal reported on the long term effects of burning coal, leading to global warming.

Visualisation of Earth's Long-Term Warming Trend, 1880-2015
(NASA.gov Video)

[youtube]gGOzHVUQCw0[/youtube]

[youtube]K3YngyVdyrI[/youtube]

So you're pro climate change now :lol:

-PB

I've heard that deniers are whinging that 2015 'doesn't count' because of the El Niño. :lol: Does that mean you have to adjust your "no warming for xxxx years", since 1998 was an El Niño? :lol:
It's beyond scientific illiteracy (although relevant). It's ideology. Anthropogenic global warming is a threat to the fundamentally flawed right wing paradigm. It's easier to stick with the flawed paradigm and attack the science, rather than vicky verka.

Ricey do you really need two shit multi's to come on here and spout your crap?

Climate science to be gone as CSIRO swings axe