Evidently you are more interested in playing politics and fucking around than anything else.
You have chosen to deliberately make conversations about climate change ambiguous so you can sucker people into your agenda even when they are not in agreement with it.
Evidently you are more interested in playing politics and fucking around than anything else.
You have chosen to deliberately make conversations about climate change ambiguous so you can sucker people into your agenda even when they are not in agreement with it.
Sincerely, that was not my intention. My apologies for any confusion.
If you genuinely mean that, then you must make more of an effort to ensure your language is clear.
I have the impression though that you will continue to frustrate other people by talking about climate change
ThatGuy is also doing the same thing and refusing to take responsibility for it.
Evidently the useage of 'climate change' has some important function that is not immediately clear to the person who hears it.
I am doing what now? Using language you don't understand? Let's be clear with this. Nobody I have talked to about climate change (insert at least 100 PhD scientific researchers here - mostly NOT climate scientists however, but chemists, physicists, etc) has ever told me they are frustrated by my lake of clarity on the subject. You are being facetious or your understanding of common terms in this field is insufficient. To blame it on me is laughable. I admit I could proof read before submitting but I'm pretty sure you know what I am typing).
The common meaning of the term "climate change" when used in the context of CO2 levels and the theory of human induced global warming is VERY clear. If you don't know what this means then why are you here?
You strike me as the person going through airport security with contraband, when you get caught you say "I no speak the English".
Clear enough for you?
Shadow
1 Nov 2012, 01:50 PM
Humans contribute to CO2 emissions, but we don't know exactly how CO2 levels impact the climate in general, and we don't (and never will) have sufficient data to be able to determine whether or not recent changes in the climate (temperatures, sea levels, extreme weather events, ice caps etc) are unusual compared to historical cycles over the past few billion years.
FAIL - answer the question.
miw
1 Nov 2012, 12:59 PM
A scientific institution has no business managing the message in the first place. They should leave that to the politicians.
We do not know what proportion of current climate change is due to humans
Your language is unscientific and therefore confusing
Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made An independent study quantifies the human and natural contributions, with solar radiation contributing only minimally
Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modelers in a paper published online December 4. Most of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.
Their findings, which are strikingly similar to results produced by other attribution methods, provide an alternative line of evidence that greenhouse gases, and in particular carbon dioxide, are by far the main culprit of recent global warming. The massive increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times would, in fact, have caused substantially more surface warming were it not for the cooling effects of atmospheric aerosols such as black carbon, they report.
I am doing what now? Using language you don't understand? Let's be clear with this. Nobody I have talked to about climate change (insert at least 100 PhD scientific researchers here - mostly NOT climate scientists however, but chemists, physicists, etc) has ever told me they are frustrated by my lake of clarity on the subject. You are being facetious or your understanding of common terms in this field is insufficient. To blame it on me is laughable. I admit I could proof read before submitting but I'm pretty sure you know what I am typing).
The common meaning of the term "climate change" when used in the context of CO2 levels and the theory of human induced global warming is VERY clear. If you don't know what this means then why are you here?
You strike me as the person going through airport security with contraband, when you get caught you say "I no speak the English".
Clear enough for you? FAIL - answer the question. Now I KNOW you're trolling.
You seem to be so wrapped up in this topic that you cannot see it clearly.
Why say climate change when you mean AGW? If i am confused by your language how many other people are confused?
Why accuse people of trolling because they object to people misusing their positions to manage a political agenda instead of only focusing on scientificly validated accuracy? Phil Jones and Co were caught red handed attempting to pervert scientific accuracy. How on earth can you even begin to justify that??
NotFooled
2 Nov 2012, 07:26 PM
Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made An independent study quantifies the human and natural contributions, with solar radiation contributing only minimally
Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modelers in a paper published online December 4. Most of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.
Their findings, which are strikingly similar to results produced by other attribution methods, provide an alternative line of evidence that greenhouse gases, and in particular carbon dioxide, are by far the main culprit of recent global warming. The massive increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times would, in fact, have caused substantially more surface warming were it not for the cooling effects of atmospheric aerosols such as black carbon, they report.
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
