Sidenote - I am sceptical, yet undecided about AGW.
Wiki is patrolled by activists.
William M Connelley is the chief climate thug operating on Wiki. At one time he was suspended from editing but it is quite clear he again has a leadership role on Wiki.
It is impossible to get an edit on their pages unless you are aligned with their message. Even quite reasonable comments are prevented from appearing there - even if they are wholely supported by existing citations on the same page.
it cannot refute idea that a man (mouse) the made not a impact a climate change
You still appear to have great difficulty following the discussion.
miw
31 Oct 2012, 06:12 PM
"Denialist" and "denyer" are used in order to try to associate anyone who challenges the climate change orthodoxy with the Nazis. As such, I tend to switch off and give anyone who uses those terms a credibility rating of zero. Similarly with "alarmist".
It is a bit of a cheap shot. I started using the term 'alarmist' last week after having been subjected to 'denialist' and 'denier' accusations for so long.
The 'climate change denier' label doesn't even make sense. I don't think anyone actually denies that the climate changes.
My position is that the climate does change, and always has done.
The correlation, or lack of, between temperature and CO2 shows that CO2 growth lags temperature growth. If you insist in drawing a causation conclusion it must be that temperature growth causes CO2 growth, rather than the reverse.
Don't look for a unbiased presentation on Wiki. Wiki has been hijacked by climate alarmists who ruthlessly police wiki on an hourly basis and remove all material not supportive of their religion.
Some of the emails written by the lead “scientists”:
IPCC co-author Kevin Trenberth,
Phil Jones, head of the CRU unit
Mick Kelly, Professor of Climate Change at Jones’ university, on hiding recent cooling:
A CRU programming code for dealing with tree-ring data:
Phil Jones again:
Phil Jones again:
Phil Jones again:
From Phil Jones to Michael Mann, on the death of Australian sceptic John Daly:
Phil Jones again:
Phil Jones again:
Phil Jones again:
Phil Jones again:
Ben Santer:
Phil Jones again:
Tom Wigley: I
Phil Jones to Michael Mann on keeping two sceptics’ papers from the IPCC:
You're stupider than I thought if you think any of that adds up to anything. Out of how many years of e-mails? and you only got a few lines you can speculate on, and absolutely nothing concrete. How pathetic! But then pathetic is you all over Stringbean!
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!! You are no longer customer, you are property!!!
You're stupider than I thought if you think any of that adds up to anything. Out of how many years of e-mails? and you only got a few lines you can speculate on, and absolutely nothing concrete. How pathetic! But then pathetic is you all over Stringbean!
Catweasel laugh. Surely that appeal to mouse. Why forum mouse want to promote a anti-science in relate to climate the change is a beyond comprehend. Catweasel teach mouzealots and forum mouse can only get a nasty. Is the ignorance admirable trait in a Australia these the days?
Catweasel laugh. Surely that appeal to mouse. Why forum mouse want to promote a anti-science in relate to climate the change is a beyond comprehend. Catweasel teach mouzealots and forum mouse can only get a nasty. Is the ignorance admirable trait in a Australia these the days?
When did you get this need to be so superior to other people?
It is odd you can say:
Catweasel say a forum really getting a bizarre now. It like a Tea Party freak show with mouzealots thrashing round like mudsharks
Then say I am anti scientific and ignorant and claim I am the one getting nasty and you have a role as a teacher.
When did you get this need to be so superior to other people?
It is odd you can say:
Catweasel say a forum really getting a bizarre now. It like a Tea Party freak show with mouzealots thrashing round like mudsharks
Then say I am anti scientific and ignorant and claim I am the one getting nasty.
It a true that mouse may dislike its behavior being the observed. It apologize for that but insights always shared with it.
As for science, very the few bother understanding from fundamental level. That nothing to be ashamed of. But mouse benefit from at least being the aware of.
It a true that mouse may dislike its behavior being the observed. It apologize for that but insights always shared with it.
As for science, very the few bother understanding from fundamental level. That nothing to be ashamed of. But mouse benefit from at least being the aware of.
Why cant you take responsibility for your behaviour?
You are not observing my behaviour. You are observing the contents of your mind where you have decided I am anti scientific, ignorant and cant be bothered to understand something from a fundamental level.
Essentially you are agreeing with Shadow. There is nothing out there other than opinion to say that rising C02 is something to be concerned about.
As far as i can see the Earth cooled during the little ice age and has now warmed to a similiar temperature as before that cooling.
What we do know as a fact, is that many alarmists twisted the historical data to suggest todays events are much scarier than they are and some of the most prominant of those people are still getting government backing.
If the subject was presented with a more open mind without the scare tactics it would lead me to think there was an open minded discussion going on as to what is happening. Instead it is common to be insulted for having an alternative view and it is easier to believe we are being bullied into something that is not supported by all of the scientific evidence available.
And as they say, no news is good news.
That's definitely not what I said. Are you deliberately trying to twist my words or do you not understand the FUNDAMENTAL difference between what you propose I insinuated and what I actually said. They could be considered opposites.
Shadow is asking a question that cannot be answered objectively. Because this cannot be answered he/she feels it adds justification to his cause. It does not. Can you tell me which of yellow or blue is more valuable?
Your next point about alarmists. Again...you are being both biased and absolutist. How about a dash of relativity. Have climate "alarmists" been more or less twisting with the facts than "deniers"?
How would we define these groups ? From what reference point would we measure the amount of twist?
THESE are the sorts of questions someone with your knowledge should be asking. Trying to judge the result from pure science is beyond you, it's beyond me, it's beyond Shadow and it's well beyond 97% of climate scientists.
You're also both making a mistake in thinking all science must be purely objective. We can only interpret the surrounding through out minds and it's all a construct after all.
The subject is presented with every type of mind, open/closed - this goes back to the question of alarmists vs denialists. Which one do you think you identify with more....why is that? Ask yourself 5 whys...if only to be a little bit more Toyota-like.
Shadow
31 Oct 2012, 04:57 PM
Not when they receive more funding and greater publicity the more alarmist their theories are.
It's obvious the opposite is true.
Some questions to help you realise (but you won't because you have made up your mind already).
1. Which Phd climate scientist would get more money?
A - The climate denialist (paid with oil money and there are less of the denialists so they get a larger share) B - the climate alarmist (paid with government money, and there are thousands of them).
Sure the climate alarmists get more money in total, but divide it by how many there are.
2. If you had a strong theory that climate change wasn't real would it get more or less attention than all those thousands of peer reviewed papers that all think it is real?
What stands out in a haystack? Each bit of hay, or the fork stuck in it?
Andrew Judd
31 Oct 2012, 11:43 PM
Evidently you are a man of faith
Again the opposite of your insinuation (on both levels) appears to be true.
People who believe in god are less likely to believe in climate change. Probably because you HAVE to have the ability to suspend the obvious truth.
That's definitely not what I said. Are you deliberately trying to twist my words or do you not understand the FUNDAMENTAL difference between what you propose I insinuated and what I actually said. They could be considered opposites.
Shadow is asking a question that cannot be answered objectively. Because this cannot be answered he/she feels it adds justification to his cause. It does not. Can you tell me which of yellow or blue is more valuable?
Your next point about alarmists. Again...you are being both biased and absolutist. How about a dash of relativity. Have climate "alarmists" been more or less twisting with the facts than "deniers"?
How would we define these groups ? From what reference point would we measure the amount of twist?
THESE are the sorts of questions someone with your knowledge should be asking. Trying to judge the result from pure science is beyond you, it's beyond me, it's beyond Shadow and it's well beyond 97% of climate scientists.
You're also both making a mistake in thinking all science must be purely objective. We can only interpret the surrounding through out minds and it's all a construct after all.
The subject is presented with every type of mind, open/closed - this goes back to the question of alarmists vs denialists. Which one do you think you identify with more....why is that? Ask yourself 5 whys...if only to be a little bit more Toyota-like. It's obvious the opposite is true.
Some questions to help you realise (but you won't because you have made up your mind already).
1. Which Phd climate scientist would get more money?
A - The climate denialist (paid with oil money and there are less of the denialists so they get a larger share) B - the climate alarmist (paid with government money, and there are thousands of them).
Sure the climate alarmists get more money in total, but divide it by how many there are.
2. If you had a strong theory that climate change wasn't real would it get more or less attention than all those thousands of peer reviewed papers that all think it is real?
What stands out in a haystack? Each bit of hay, or the fork stuck in it?
I am not sure what you mean by blue or yellow. Should i be seeing those colours?
I still find you supported Shadows point of view. Shadow wants information about the extent of human created global warming
But your comments about "alarmist" show to me that you do not know what i mean by alarmist.
If a person is talking about human created global warming as a plausible scenario that can explain the current warming then that is one thing. Alarmists are however saying that humans are definately warming the planet and are doing so in a dangerous manner, and they are then describing the evidence in terms of hype where any evidence to the contrary is ignored or deliberately obscured.
Most climate scientists are not alarmists. They are genuinely looking at the data and keeping an open mind about what is possible
We then go back to Shadows request. Nobody knows the answer. Instead there are various groups like for example Phil Jones who feels in his gut he must be right and wants to be right he says for selfish reasons even though he knows it is not scientific to say that.
By the way it is never clear to me what a person means by denialist. However the word denialist is unbecoming of the scientific method where critical thinking is an essential part of the method. Denialist therefore seems to be something spoken by what i call an alarmist rather than an ordinary climate scientist. A scientist should always welcome different view points rather than be so irrationally hostile to them as we find with what I assume to be the alarmists.
By the way why do so many of you here who are talking to me and Shadow and others talk about climate change as if you think that is the topic being discussed?
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
