August 2003 and the CSRIO was warning by 2020 we may no longer have snow.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/general/icons-under-threat-the-alps/2005/11/18/1132016933810.html

Does anyone think the snow will vanish in the next 3 years or did our peak scientific body have it wrong?

of course the BOM and CSRIO rely heavily on their climate change funding. No problem, no funding.

 

8 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

August 2003 and the CSRIO was warning by 2020 we may no longer have snow.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/general/icons-under-threat-the-alps/2005/11/18/1132016933810.html

Does anyone think the snow will vanish in the next 3 years or did our peak scientific body have it wrong?

of course the BOM and CSRIO rely heavily on their climate change funding. No problem, no funding.

 

Ha ! hilarious. You have constantly called out climate scientists for duplicitous and overstated prediction and then you post this.

So in this little article you linked  - you state that the CSIRO was warning by 2020 we may no longer have snow.  Please point me to the part in the article that states that ?

I read the article and the closest I could come to your statement is  CSIRO said that in 2003 that by 2020 resorts could lose 25% of their snow. Adjusting figures to suit are we ?

 

3 hours ago, nutbean said:

Ha ! hilarious. You have constantly called out climate scientists for duplicitous and overstated prediction and then you post this.

So in this little article you linked  - you state that the CSIRO was warning by 2020 we may no longer have snow.  Please point me to the part in the article that states that ?

I read the article and the closest I could come to your statement is  CSIRO said that in 2003 that by 2020 resorts could lose 25% of their snow. Adjusting figures to suit are we ?

 

Yep, to quote the article linked to by Wrecker... "A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that the resorts could lose a quarter of their snow in 15 years, and half by 2050. The worst case was a 96 per cent loss of snow by mid-century." (perhaps Wrecker considers 2020 to be mid-century?).

13 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Thanks mate I could read that one. It's 673 pages long and I don't have the time or energy to disect the lot. Which chapter do you think is the strongest argument for man made climate change? I'll happily and easily tell you why it is misleading.

Oh no i found myself on the dark web! before i leave i thought i'd respond to this post. 

To me the bolded part in the post above goes to the heart of what is so wrong with much of the so called discussion about a range of 'hot' issues in this day and age.

You have not read the paper and don't really want to. Rather you want to be pointed to the chapter that strongest argument for man made climate change. And despite not having read that chapter you know already that you will 'happily and easily tell you why it is misleading'.

How on earth can you say that? how can you form an opinion on an argument without reading what the argument is?

If your view is unchangeable what is the point of engaging in a discussion about the issue? Perhaps all you are interested in is convincing others of your view.

3 hours ago, nutbean said:

Ha ! hilarious. You have constantly called out climate scientists for duplicitous and overstated prediction and then you post this.

So in this little article you linked  - you state that the CSIRO was warning by 2020 we may no longer have snow.  Please point me to the part in the article that states that ?

I read the article and the closest I could come to your statement is  CSIRO said that in 2003 that by 2020 resorts could lose 25% of their snow. Adjusting figures to suit are we ?

 

It's also hilarious I linked to The Age. I despise the Spencer Street Socialist. 

Unfortunately the CSRIO seem to have removed the prediction from their website. What Government funded scientific body should have to bother with transparency?

 

 

16 minutes ago, binman said:

Oh no i found myself on the dark web! before i leave i thought i'd respond to this post. 

To me the bolded part in the post above goes to the heart of what is so wrong with much of the so called discussion about a range of 'hot' issues in this day and age.

You have not read the paper and don't really want to. Rather you want to be pointed to the chapter that strongest argument for man made climate change. And despite not having read that chapter you know already that you will 'happily and easily tell you why it is misleading'.

How on earth can you say that? how can you form an opinion on an argument without reading what the argument is?

If your view is unchangeable what is the point of engaging in a discussion about the issue? Perhaps all you are interested in is convincing others of your view.

The reason I am so confident I can tear apart any chapter is because both history and the facts are on my side.

Rather than dodge around the issue choose a pertinent point, your favourite chapter or even a paragraph that you think makes sense. Post it and I will agree with it if there is any merit in it. 

Edited August 10, 20177 yr by Wrecker45
Wrote a dud sentence

51 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Yep, to quote the article linked to by Wrecker... "A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that the resorts could lose a quarter of their snow in 15 years, and half by 2050. The worst case was a 96 per cent loss of snow by mid-century." (perhaps Wrecker considers 2020 to be mid-century?).

I'll pay you credit Hardtack because I would be ripping shreads through you if the shoe was on the other foot. I can't get a copy of the original piece written by the CSRIO. I've been caught out for not bothering to properly read the article I linked to. 

16 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

 I've been caught out for not bothering to properly read the article I linked to. 

On that, we are in agreement.....

3 hours ago, nutbean said:

On that, we are in agreement.....

Did you read the 673 pages of the alarmist article you linked too?

6 hours ago, nutbean said:

On that, we are in agreement.....

Normally people say let's agree to disagree. Not in this case. I didn't properly read the article I linked to.

i agree I was wrong to conclude from that Spencer Street Socialist article.

I'll always admit when i''m wrong. There is no shame in that, it is a sign of intelligence.

At what point will you post your own argument from the 600 plus page document you cited?

act 2, scene 2 includes my favourite line of Macbeth. You won't see me linking to the whole play to somehow try and validate a point.

What is your point of posting a 600 + page article.

 

"act 2, scene 2 includes my favourite line of Macbeth. You won't see me linking to the whole play to somehow try and validate a point."

 

what's the line?

52 minutes ago, Jara said:

"act 2, scene 2 includes my favourite line of Macbeth. You won't see me linking to the whole play to somehow try and validate a point."

 

what's the line?

'Fair is foul and foul is fair and hover in the thin brown air?'

On 09/08/2017 at 11:08 PM, Wrecker45 said:

Thanks mate I could read that one. It's 673 pages long and I don't have the time or energy to disect the lot. Which chapter do you think is the strongest argument for man made climate change? I'll happily and easily tell you why it is misleading.

 

11 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Normally people say let's agree to disagree. Not in this case. I didn't properly read the article I linked to.

i agree I was wrong to conclude from that Spencer Street Socialist article.

I'll always admit when i''m wrong. There is no shame in that, it is a sign of intelligence.

At what point will you post your own argument from the 600 plus page document you cited?

act 2, scene 2 includes my favourite line of Macbeth. You won't see me linking to the whole play to somehow try and validate a point.

What is your point of posting a 600 + page article.

 

 

15 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Did you read the 673 pages of the alarmist article you linked too?

You see..this is where you really do become unstuck, you overreach and then show how "rusted on" you are.

So ..I make post of an article on which i did read the executive summary. - but I never said I read all of it. My only comment was that I found it interesting.

You said you  didn't have the energy to read and dissect it it but go on in your next post to say to say it is an "Alarmist article".

So for all your intelligence and open minded approach to this issue  I'll pose a simple question.

If you admit that you didn't read it  how do you know it is alarmist ?

You want my argument ? Here is my argument - people way smarter than me  and probably you, with lots of fancy degrees in the specific area of climate have written a report to be handed to the highest power in the USA. It makes predictions ( that are rated ) and makes suggestions. This is another report that points to in a direction on the climate change debate that i find truly scary. Am a 100% certain that they are right ? Nope. But I on the balance of probabilities I think they are.

There you go. I think there is extreme commentary on both sides of the debate but my main problem discussing this with you is your mind is made up as evidenced. I do read this thread but rarely post anymore for this exact reason.

17 hours ago, dieter said:

'Fair is foul and foul is fair and hover in the thin brown air?'

Except that I don't think that's in Act 2. Wrecker must have something else in mind.

1 hour ago, Jara said:

Except that I don't think that's in Act 2. Wrecker must have something else in mind.

Didn't think it was. And I got the last few words wrong...

11 hours ago, nutbean said:

 

 

You see..this is where you really do become unstuck, you overreach and then show how "rusted on" you are.

So ..I make post of an article on which i did read the executive summary. - but I never said I read all of it. My only comment was that I found it interesting.

You said you  didn't have the energy to read and dissect it it but go on in your next post to say to say it is an "Alarmist article".

So for all your intelligence and open minded approach to this issue  I'll pose a simple question.

If you admit that you didn't read it  how do you know it is alarmist ?

You want my argument ? Here is my argument - people way smarter than me  and probably you, with lots of fancy degrees in the specific area of climate have written a report to be handed to the highest power in the USA. It makes predictions ( that are rated ) and makes suggestions. This is another report that points to in a direction on the climate change debate that i find truly scary. Am a 100% certain that they are right ? Nope. But I on the balance of probabilities I think they are.

There you go. I think there is extreme commentary on both sides of the debate but my main problem discussing this with you is your mind is made up as evidenced. I do read this thread but rarely post anymore for this exact reason.

One of the few logical posts in this thread.

Am I 100% certain. Of course not, but what I have read makes man made warming based on co2 emmisions very difficult to believe.

My mind is not made up on any topic let alone this. I will always change my mind when the facts dictate change.

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

One of the few logical posts in this thread.

Am I 100% certain. Of course not, but what I have read makes man made warming based on co2 emmisions very difficult to believe.

My mind is not made up on any topic let alone this. I will always change my mind when the facts dictate change.

Ah, Wreck, how disappointing, you've fudged. Maybe because Nutbean nailed you?....

Not to mention the so-called Spencer Street Socialists. Give up, accept reality, play Somewhere over the Rainbow and get nostalgic about the good old days when misinformation and propaganda ruled the world. The problem is there are people who are not afraid to call bulls..t bulls..t now.

20 hours ago, Jara said:

Except that I don't think that's in Act 2. Wrecker must have something else in mind.

that is not the quote I was referring too.

There is nothing good nor bad, just thinking makes it so.

14 hours ago, dieter said:

Ah, Wreck, how disappointing, you've fudged. Maybe because Nutbean nailed you?....

Not to mention the so-called Spencer Street Socialists. Give up, accept reality, play Somewhere over the Rainbow and get nostalgic about the good old days when misinformation and propaganda ruled the world. The problem is there are people who are not afraid to call bulls..t bulls..t now.

How does your tin foil hat cope with global warming? I froze through the warmest July on record. You must have been smoking hot with that head gear.

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

How does your tin foil hat cope with global warming? I froze through the warmest July on record. You must have been smoking hot with that head gear.

Actually, man, I froze. I do a lot of walking on an arthritic knee and as I shivered and swore at my misery I kept dreaming of Brunswick Heads. Very mundane, I know, but in the end, us members of the SSS are merely mortal who just wanna have a good time.

4 hours ago, dieter said:

Actually, man, I froze. I do a lot of walking on an arthritic knee and as I shivered and swore at my misery I kept dreaming of Brunswick Heads. Very mundane, I know, but in the end, us members of the SSS are merely mortal who just wanna have a good time.

I shivered throug it too.

it should be preetty ficken obvious it was freezing cold.

I am not pre disposed  too evidence based , less exreme, or less frequent cyclones or cyclone activity.

Any extreme weather specifically different from pre- industry agree with.the pre industrial revolution

just like July wan't the warmenst on record in Melbourne unless you multiply it by 4, subtract the median and divide it again.

The satellite data needs no adjustment and is accurate. Let's watch this figures closely.

 

On 12 August 2017 at 0:47 PM, Wrecker45 said:

that is not the quote I was referring too.

There is nothing good nor bad, just thinking makes it so.

Think that's from Hamlet, not MacBeth. 

 

Brought to mind another line from Shakespeare I've always loved: "Look, he's winding up the watch of his wit. Bye and bye it will strike." (from The Tempest - Probably not accurate - just from memory, but I've always thought it was such a clever comment upon humour, and how much speed is an essential component of it)

4 hours ago, Jara said:

Think that's from Hamlet, not MacBeth. 

 

Brought to mind another line from Shakespeare I've always loved: "Look, he's winding up the watch of his wit. Bye and bye it will strike." (from The Tempest - Probably not accurate - just from memory, but I've always thought it was such a clever comment upon humour, and how much speed is an essential component of it)

My bad. I thought i typed Hamlet due to the context and knowing the quote well. 

What are the odds spellchecker confuses the author of some of our greatest written material and auto corrected Hamlet to MacBeth? 

Now if you don't mind I have a straw to go and clutch.

 

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001:

Acute water shortage conditions combined with thermal stress should adversely affect wheat and, more severely, rice productivity in India even under the positive effects of elevated CO2 in the future.

Times of India, 17 August 2017:

India’s foodgrain production for the 2016-17 crop year is estimated at record 275.68 million tonnes ... which is over 4% higher than the previous record production achieved in the country during 2013-14.

3 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001:

Acute water shortage conditions combined with thermal stress should adversely affect wheat and, more severely, rice productivity in India even under the positive effects of elevated CO2 in the future.

Times of India, 17 August 2017:

India’s foodgrain production for the 2016-17 crop year is estimated at record 275.68 million tonnes ... which is over 4% higher than the previous record production achieved in the country during 2013-14.

But that is the concensus science. Of course that is an oxymoron.