1 hour ago, Jara said:

Pro, the professional bodies that I know are mostly funded by the subscriptions of their members. Why on earth would governments pay organisations to peddle false information? What is their motive? I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't make sense. What are you suggesting, that there's some giant conspiracy involving all the governments and all the professional science organisations in the world?

 

Re your last comment, alas, you're probably right. I haven't done a huge amount of original research (like - none) on climate science. Nor have I done any research on the biosynthesis of the brain, the expulsion of magnetic flux fluids in superconductivity or the role of spin in Schrodinger's equation. I am pathetic, a left-wing parrot. I have vast gaps in my knowledge.

But the thing is,   where I have those gaps, I tend to trust the science. It does have a way of measuring, assessing and validating things until an approximation of the truth emerges. And, when it's proved wrong, it admits it. This is why we can trust things like - oh, I don't know - aeroplanes, computers, vaccination.  This is why, when my doctor tells me my cholesterol is high (it isn't, you'll be relieved to know) I don't nip out and get a second opinion from the bus driver on the way home.

 

So, back to my original question ( and let's be fair - I went to great lengths to try and answer yours - I know, I know, I failed miserably, but I did my best, so maybe you could do the same) Is there a single, professionally recognised scientific organisation in the world - anywhere! The Albanian Alchemists? The Burkina Faso Headshrinkers? - that supports your views? 

A simple yes or no will suffice.

I know you think you're on a winner, but It's a stupid question.  If you're so interested do your own research.

The science isn't settled, so your "trust the science" comment is a nonsense.  If you don't do anything else google "science is never settled".  Einstein said, "100 scientists can't prove me right, but one can prove me wrong".

I don't blame you by the way, it's shoved down everyone's throat that man is dangerously warming the planet.  Unfortunately, the models have been wrong, NASA alters data, and I could waste my time saying a host of other things that will fall on deaf ears.

Also, Australia contributes 0.000018% of the climates CO2, which is nothing.  But that doesn't trouble you either.  You're happy to waste billions.

So that's a no?

41 minutes ago, Jara said:

So that's a no?

I remember why I put you on ignore.

Jara "Trust the science".

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” This quote from 2000 was made by Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. 

 

11 hours ago, ProDee said:

I remember why I put you on ignore.

I know, it's a hard slog, trying to refute logic. 

 

But really, it's a pretty simple question: is there a single credible science organisation in the world that supports your opinions on climate change? I'll take one from anywhere. The Lesothian Rabbit Skinners Institute. The Baumberg Knee-Slappers.

11 minutes ago, Jara said:

I know, it's a hard slog, trying to refute logic. 

 

But really, it's a pretty simple question: is there a single credible science organisation in the world that supports your opinions on climate change? I'll take one from anywhere. The Lesothian Rabbit Skinners Institute. The Baumberg Knee-Slappers.

You've not provided any logic in this thread and admit you're a climate dummy who "trusts the science".  No problem.  But I will supply evidence of why CO2 is not warming the planet "dangerously" or at all.  And I've done so in over 100 posts in this thread.

There are tens of thousands of scientists who refute the climate scare and plenty of organisations too.  Naturally, they're labelled deniers, misinformers, etc.  But you can do your own research on that.

Gregory Wrightstone

The temperature rise we are witnessing today is neither unprecedented nor unusual. An inspection of the chart below compares CO2 and temperatures from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (link is on chart) of the last 12,000 years from the beginning of the current inter-glacial period to 1855 when the data starts. Several important take-aways from the chart:

• Preceding warm periods commonly reached significantly higher temperatures than we see now
• The one constant regarding temperature is that it is always changing
• We are about 11,600 years into the current inter-glacial warming period which typically last 10,000 to 15,000 years
• There is NO discernible correlation between CO2 and temperature during this time

The following graph shows 600 million years of CO2.  It also shows the mass extinction level of 150 ppvm.

As you can see, we're at historically low levels.  CO2 was 20 times the current ppmv over 500 million years ago.

 

Remember when climate alarmists got stuck in ice at the Antarctic ?  Four years ago today.

 

On 29 December 2017 at 10:03 AM, ProDee said:

Gregory Wrightstone

The temperature rise we are witnessing today is neither unprecedented nor unusual. An inspection of the chart below compares CO2 and temperatures from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (link is on chart) of the last 12,000 years from the beginning of the current inter-glacial period to 1855 when the data starts. Several important take-aways from the chart:

• Preceding warm periods commonly reached significantly higher temperatures than we see now
• The one constant regarding temperature is that it is always changing
• We are about 11,600 years into the current inter-glacial warming period which typically last 10,000 to 15,000 years
• There is NO discernible correlation between CO2 and temperature during this time

Wrightstone is a petroleum geologist who works for the fossil fuel industry (i.e. hardly objective)

Whatever - I'm sure he knows a lot more than I do.

 

That said, if he's going to be preaching climate denial, he would be well advised to begin with his fellow geology professionals (who collectively know more than he does) This is a quote from the website of the American Geological Society:

 

The use of abundant and cheap fossil fuels has contributed to the emergence of the United States as an economic power and has raised the standard of living for much of the developed world. This use, however, represents an energy business model that must change. We now know that anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions, including those from fossil fuel combustion, have a profound impact on global climate, with effects on local and regional ecosystems and public health.

We died in 2,000.

Is there anything else you'd like to add Pro? I'm sure you'll find more 'evidence'. Just keep 'investigating', but please don't forget to eat your greens and get some exercise because everyone on this site fears you might be becoming too just a  wee bit obsessive...

40 minutes ago, dieter said:

Is there anything else you'd like to add Pro? I'm sure you'll find more 'evidence'. Just keep 'investigating', but please don't forget to eat your greens and get some exercise because everyone on this site fears you might be becoming too just a  wee bit obsessive...

Alas, Dieter, I fear he'll keep em coming. It's not hard to do his so called 'research' - all you have to do is log onto a few sites like Breitbart etc and they give you all the propaganda links etc. you want.

And, as he confessed, he never actually contacts the real experts to see what they reckon. When I asked him why he didn't do that, he mattered something about just being a footy fan and being busy running his small business. I thought (but very politely refrained from saying) - huh? - you've got all the time to run around cherry-picking Breitbart rubbish, but you haven't got time to actually ask an expert?   

 

I was amused by this earlier comment from Pro: I do know the answers.  Anyone who has shown a predilection for the climate has learnt the basics. 

 

A predilection for climate? What's that supposed to mean? I don't think he even knows. If anything, I'd say he's got a predilection for nuthouse conspiracy theories.

1 hour ago, Jara said:

Alas, Dieter, I fear he'll keep em coming. It's not hard to do his so called 'research' - all you have to do is log onto a few sites like Breitbart etc and they give you all the propaganda links etc. you want.

And, as he confessed, he never actually contacts the real experts to see what they reckon. When I asked him why he didn't do that, he mattered something about just being a footy fan and being busy running his small business. I thought (but very politely refrained from saying) - huh? - you've got all the time to run around cherry-picking Breitbart rubbish, but you haven't got time to actually ask an expert?   

 

I was amused by this earlier comment from Pro: I do know the answers.  Anyone who has shown a predilection for the climate has learnt the basics. 

 

A predilection for climate? What's that supposed to mean? I don't think he even knows. If anything, I'd say he's got a predilection for nuthouse conspiracy theories.

I never visit Breitbart, but come across an article occasionally linked to them.  After all, they'll report what Left-wing alarmists won't.  Not that it would matter if I did, because any articles of theirs I've shared are from scientists, who they happen to be quoting.

You're right about more stuff coming.   I have at least 50 articles or videos I could share within the next 5 minutes.  Be patient though...

Btw, if Breitbart quote a legitimate scientist, or study, why is that scientist or study not relevant because of who's reported it ?

As for a predilection for climate ?  I love learning and find the science and debates fascinating.  While I don't post on science blogs the amount one learns from the comments section is extraordinary.  There are a lot of people out there who have incredible insight into temperature and the atmosphere on BOTH sides of the argument. 

Edited December 30, 20177 yr by ProDee

17 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I never visit Breitbart, but come across an article occasionally linked to them.  After all, they'll report what Left-wing alarmists won't.  Not that it would matter if I did, because any articles of theirs I've shared are from scientists, who they happen to be quoting.

You're right about more stuff coming.   I have at least 50 articles or videos I could share within the next 5 minutes.  Be patient though...

Btw, if Breitbart quote a legitimate scientist, or study, why is that scientist or study not relevant because of who's reported it ?

As for a predilection for climate ?  I love learning and find the science and debates fascinating.  While I don't post on science blogs the amount one learns from the comments section is extraordinary.  There are a lot of people out there who have incredible insight into temperature and the atmosphere on BOTH sides of the argument. 

I repeat, eat your greens, get some exercise...

18 minutes ago, dieter said:

I repeat, eat your greens, get some exercise...

Get some exercise ?

How about I meet you at a gym of your choice ?

 I love learning and find the science and debates fascinating.  While I don't post on science blogs the amount one learns from the comments section is extraordinary.  There are a lot of people out there who have incredible insight into temperature and the atmosphere on BOTH sides of the argument. 

Pro, If you find the insights from "BOTH" sides so incredible, how come you only ever cut and paste the stuff from one? 

On 27/12/2017 at 10:32 AM, mauriesy said:

 

ProDee, when 80% of Australians believe more needs to be done about climate change, the world's largest mining company (BHP) is threatening to leaving the Mineral Council because of lack of climate change policy, and other large companies like Wesfarmers are getting out of coal to avoid future stranded assets, do you feel like you're winning anything?

 

You realise it is a commercial decision by BHP not an ethical or science driven one?

The filthy capitalist company are opting for greater profits over providing cheap, reliable energy for the greater good of the people.

Edited December 30, 20177 yr by Wrecker45
Spelling

On 27/12/2017 at 8:39 AM, Jara said:

 

Could I ask you a question(I'm serious here - you've obviously read a lot more than I have)? I just pulled that letter off the web. Are there any serious scientific organisations - and I mean serious - joined by academic leaders, respected by their profession, and not just stooges funded by some oil company or Saudi Arabia -  that support your views?

 

How could an organisation come up with a "view" and call it scientific? Sounds more like group think or an instruction from the top to get funding.

Organisations don't think for themselves. Neither do lefties.

Hey Wrecker - welcome back - (except that you're a bit scary cos you're on the ball and usually find holes in my arguments)

But here, I don't see the problem. All sorts of organisations come up with policy positions on all sorts of things, usually based on some sort of consensus among the members of the organisation (e.g. . a political party, an employer group, your local cricket club)  In my experience, policy positions are usually developed and signed off by the board members, who are elected by the general membership of the profession. Candidates standing for election state their beliefs, and are voted for accordingly. I presume that happens with the scientific organisations I mentioned (e.g. the Chemical , Geological Associations or whatever they were).

 

This seems like a pretty sensible approach to me; it means that the scientific organisations tend to represent the general consensus of opinion among the professionals in that particular branch of science. As accepted theory evolves, policy platforms change.

 

That's why I'm a bit wary of people like this Wrightstone fellow. He may be right - he certainly knows enough to bamboozle an ignoramus like me - but he clearly doesn't know enough to bamboozle his fellow experts, who, as the quote I gave demonstrates, accept that climate change is anthropogenic and dangerous (I'm also a bit suspicious because he's working for the fossil fuel industry - I'd question his objectivity).

 

Re your last comment - pleeeze - you can do better than that. 

 

  

4 hours ago, ProDee said:

Get some exercise ?

How about I meet you at a gym of your choice ?

What about pistols at dawn?

1 hour ago, Jara said:

Re your last comment - pleeeze - you can do better than that. 

Unfortunately I believe people who question the Will of the Murdochs, people who don't like having 'facts' rammed down their throats, people who question the lies and bullsheets every government rams down the willing suspensions of disbelief of its constituents - For Example, 'Children Overboard', Weapons of Mass Destruction, Vietnam is a Domino - is a Leftie, whatever the fluck that means.

Personally, I use my right hand in preference to my left hand for most chores, so I don't really understand what a 'leftie' is supposed to mean. 

Is it a term, perhaps,  Troglodytes once used to describe Communists, god forbid?

Edited December 30, 20177 yr by dieter

18 minutes ago, dieter said:

What about pistols at dawn?

The gym is fine.  Name your destination.