Gator

You don't think Christianity is more "enlightened" than Islam and those from benighted middle eastern Islamic cultures ? You're a cultural relativist ? It's Leftist enablers like you that help this evil ideology to thrive in the West. Are you an Israel-hating weirdo too ? PS: Marxism has evolved into far more than economics and it will be treated as such.

I don't care who I influence or otherwise. I post for me and no-one else. Like Turnbull, I'm having the time of my life. Is he worse than Gillard and only marginally better that Rudd ? As for Tony Heller... Rather than rubbish his credentials, which are very reasonable and he's clearly published content of extreme interest, why don't you refute his charts and data ? Why don't you refute his assertions with intellect and data ? He shows you NASA graphs that prove his point. He and others show NASA graphs that prove tampering. He shows verifiable climategate emails, yet all you can talk about is his qualifications. You simply must believe that humans are bad and killing the planet. It's in your DNA. It wouldn't matter what proof was put before you. You want to believe. But any time you want to engage in debate and debunk my posts you're most welcome to try. Didn't think so.

Deranged Lefties are out in force being suddenly enabled by the goodwill of the Australian people.. Can't even remember the debate you're referring to. Remind me if you like. But yes, WHO and any self respecting psychiatric organisation acknowledges that there's no such thing as transgender and it is indeed a mental illness. The Danes were the first to declassify it as an illness earlier this year, so that's the mad world we're starting to encounter. Unfortunately, those that should be treated for gender dysphoria are often encouraged by self-serving genderfluid Marxist activists. It's at the expense of what's (usually) a very treatable illness. You're an utterly contemptible lot.

SEPTEMBER 2017 A landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience now concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century. One of its authors, Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admits his past predictions of runaway warming were too alarmist. ANOTHER author, Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, confessed that too many of the mathematical models used by climate scientists to predict future warming “were on the hot side”— meaning they exaggerated.

You're a dope. Every practising Muslim voted no. Every single one. At least 60% of Australians identify as Christian and you saw the result. No wonder you're a Leftist with that type of thinking. Btw, I'm waiting for you on another thread. Unsurprisingly, you've run away.

Cut the crap. It was the Muslim vote. That's it.

If you can't contribute why bother. It makes me think you're either an idiot or a troll.

Solution of the Greenhouse Effect equations shows no increase in Earth's surface temperature from increase in carbon dioxide https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319324166_Solution_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect_equations_shows_no_increase_in_Earth's_surface_temperature_from_increase_in_carbon_dioxide

Notice how in the graphs below temperature mimics solar activity ? Who could believe that such a powerful beast in the sky could actually dictate our temperatures ? Amazing, I know. It's blindingly obvious, unless you're an idiot, that the sun (mainly) and oceans control temperature.

‘Two-Thirds Of Climate Warming’ Since 1750 Due To ‘Solar Causes’ – Dr. Alan D. Smith, Geoscientist Much of the debate about the Sun’s role in climate change is centered around reconstructions of solar activity that span the last 400 years, which now include satellite data from the late 1970s to present. To buttress the claim that solar forcing has effectively played almost no role in surface temperature changes since the mid-20th century, the IPCC has shown preference for modeled reconstructions of solar activity (i.e., the PMOD) that show a stable or decreasing trend since the 1970s. Why? Because if the modeled results can depict steady or decreasing solar activity since the last few decades of the 20th century – just as surface temperatures were rising – then attributing the post-1970s warming trend to human activity becomes that much easier. The trouble is, satellite observations using ACRIM data (which have been affirmed to be accurate by other satellite data sets and are rooted in observation, not modeled expectations) indicate that solar activity did not decline after the 1970s, but actually rose quite substantially. It wasn’t until the early 2000s that solar activity began to decline, corresponding with the denouement of the Modern Grand Maximum. Notice how closely temperatures have followed solar activity ? After Removing Instrumental ‘Adjustments’, Urban Bias, Temperatures Follow Solar Activity The combined Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT) data set — which is featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports — underwent a revision from version 3 to version 4 in March of 2012. This was about a year before the latest IPCC report was to be released (2013). At the time (early 2012), it was quite inconvenient to the paradigm that HadCRUT3 was highlighting a slight global cooling trend between 1998 and 2012, as shown in the graph below (using HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4 raw data from WoodForTrees). So, by changing versions, and by adjusting the data, the slight cooling was changed to a slight warming trend.

NASA removes warming trend from 1850-1950 from its OWN graphs. Why, because it's inconvenient for temperatures to have been steadily rising with anthropogenic emissions flat during this period. As recently as 1990, it was widely accepted that the global temperature trend, as reported by NASA (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987), showed a “0.5°C rise between 1880 and 1950.” Naturally, the next graph shows that NASA has removed virtually all of the warming. Our resident Leftist dolts don't care. They turn a blind eye as long as NASA is progressing their religion. What do you think @Earl Hood

3 Atmospheric Scientists: Greenhouse Effect Based On ‘Physically Irrelevant Assumptions’ http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/25/another-new-paper-dismantles-the-co2-greenhouse-effect-thought-experiment/#sthash.RIZWwyEy.dpbs

This post is manna from heaven. I now get to ask questions and hold you to account to each one. We begin. Despite seeming like a deranged idealogue you have excellent qualifications to argue fact. So I'll give you some. Btw, I'm an amateur observer with no scientific qualifications, so you won't find this hard. Phew. But the facts I present below are well researched, not mine, and if you differ please advise. I'm sure you'll indulge me by answering every question I'm about to pose with sound scientific reason. If you don't know don't guess. Remember there is NO consensus in science. As the great Albert Einstein once said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. One experiment can prove me wrong". I thank you in advance and please number every response. 1. Humans contribute approx. 3% of atmospheric CO2 and nature contributes 97%. Do you agree ? 2. CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, which is the equivalent of 4 cents in $10,000. Do you agree ? 3. Out of this 4 cents in $10,000 humans contribute 3%, i.e. 0.12 cents. Australia contributes 1.5% of that 0.12 cents, i.e. 0.0018 cents. Do you agree with these calculations, i.e. Australia contributes the equivalent of 0.0018 cents in $10,000 in the contribution of atmospheric CO2 ? 4. Do you think there are 100+ influences that contribute to climate change, i.e. solar activity, cosmic rays, ocean circulation, clouds, volcanoes, water vapour, El Niños, etc. or do you think that 0.04% of the atmosphere, i.e. CO2 is the sole driver of temperature ? 5. Do you think NASA has manipulated recent temperature graphs ? If not, I'll prove they have. 6. Do you think NASA scientists have publicly agreed that there was no significant warming in the 20th century ? If not, I'll prove they have. 7. Do you think climate scientists were worried about global cooling in the 1970's ? If not, I'll prove they were. 8. Do you think solar activity, specifically sunspots, could be the driving force of climate change, like scientists prior to the fund addicted generation of the 1980s and beyond ? 8. Explain why we've had cooler periods with 10 times atmospheric CO2, i.e 4000 ppmv, as opposed to our present levels of 400 ppmv ? If CO2 is the driver of temperature how is this possible ? 9. Ice cores from Antarctica prove that CO2 lags temperature. Even alarmists acknowledge this was the case. Do you agree or disagree ? 10. Arctic minimum sea ice extent is greater in 2017 than 2007 in supposedly hotter temperatures and the decade from hell. Explain how sea ice extent defies temperature ? Or is data being manipulated ? If you requite proof of the last 10 years of minimum Arctic sea ice extent I can provide it. I have more, but thought I'd start with an easy 10. You and your engineering background should kill this and educate me.

Of course climate changes, whether that be warming or cooling. Who has denied this ? It's always changing and always will. We're presently having less hurricanes and they're no more intense. The pause is now approx. 20 years despite NASA's fraudulent adjustment of data. Some warming is BETTER than cooling. Plus, CO2 lags temperature. It doesn't drive temperature. Humans are NOT warming the planet. SOLAR ACTIVITY dictates climate. You'll need to find a new religion.

Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth Gulp http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/24/delingpole-now-400-scientific-papers-in-2017-say-global-warming-is-a-myth/ It’s the sun, stupid! (106 papers stress solar influence on climate) Before deranged Leftists have apoplexy re the source, they are just the "source". Too hard, I know. Your religion is a crock.

Matt Ridley is a British scientist who appeared on Foxtel's Outsiders program this morning. He (mistakenly) believes that CO2 and humans are "probably" warming the planet. But he's more concerned by radical government policies for this mistaken belief. For this lukewarm attitude he is pilloried by alarmists and labelled a climate misinformer. There is no hole for the Left. https://www.skepticalscience.com/Matt_Ridley_blog.htm

Here's one of James Hansen's from NASA temperature graphs from 1981. Note the cooling from 1940 to 1980. Now note the current NASA 20th century temperature graph. The cooling from 1940 to 1980 has been erased. Same organisation. Both NASA graphs of 20th century temperature data. Two different messages. It's fraudulent data manipulation that Leftists turn a blind eye to. And why do they turn a blind eye ? Because they are the most disingenuous swines to ever draw breath.

A quick lesson on how this global warming madness started. Bert Bolin a Swedish scientist was the first to talk about the dangers of CO2 in 1974 when global scientists were worried about global cooling. He said fossil fuels and the increase in CO2 may help warm the planet by a few degrees over the next 50 years. Originally considered absurd two things happened. The temperatures started to warm, and the miners went on strike. The oil crisis of the 1970s plunged the world into recession and the miners brought down Ted Heath’s conservative government. The beginning of the politicisation of energy was through Margaret Thatcher, who wanted nuclear energy. She didn’t trust the Middle East and she didn’t trust the miners, therefore coal, so she wanted nuclear power (the fact we don't have it now is a scandal). When the concerns re CO2 were raised she saw a great opportunity to go nuclear. She wasn’t really concerned about the destruction of the planet. Thatcher went to the Royal Society of scientists and said there’s money on the table to prove this stuff. Naturally, they did. And we’re left with this global madness driven by fund addicted scientists and enabled by deranged Leftists, whose new religion is the climate.

Another excellent discussion by Willie Soon, who can't believe the morons who believe that CO2, which is the equivalent of 4 cents in $10,000, is the driver of global warming. Naturally, he believes solar activity is the driver. WHICH IT IS. (may have to scroll back to the beginning)

At UN Summit, World Rulers Adopt Agenda for Global Socialism Written by Alex Newman· A far-reaching United Nations plot to re-engineer civilization and impose global socialism on humanity, variously dubbed “Agenda 2030” and the “Sustainable Development Agenda,” was ushered in on Friday with a “thunderous standing ovation,” the UN Department of Public Information reported. Every one of the 193 UN member governments on the planet — from communist and Islamist dictatorships to those ruling what remains of the “Free World” — vowed to help impose the UN's controversial goals on their subjects. Indeed, according to the UN and the global agreement itself, not a single human being will be allowed to escape what one prominent internationalist ominously referred to as the next “Great Leap Forward.” That the UN Agenda 2030's 17 so-called “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) and its accompanying 169 targets are essentially a recipe for global socialism and corporatism is hardly open for dispute, as countless analysts have pointed out in recent weeks. Goal number 10, for example, calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.” The brutal communist dictatorship ruling mainland China even boasted of its “crucial role” in creating the UN agenda. But as the UN document makes clear, national socialism to “combat inequality” domestically is simply not enough — international socialism is needed to battle inequality even “among” countries. In other words, Western taxpayers: Prepare to be fleeced so that your wealth can redistributed internationally. Of course, as has been the case for generations, most of the wealth extracted from the productive sector in what remains of the free world will be redistributed to the UN and Third World regimes — not the victims of those regimes, impoverished largely through domestic socialist policies imposed by the same corrupt regimes that will be propped up with more Western aid. More than a few governments and dictators also announced that they would be “aligning their national development plans with the Sustainable Development Agenda,” essentially ensuring a growing supply of poor people to exploit as a pretext for more UN-led global socialism. The UN document, formally entitled “Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” was adopted on Friday, September 25, at the start of the UN's three-day Summit on Sustainable Development in New York. Speaking at the opening ceremony of the confab, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon hinted at just how far-reaching the plot really is. “The new agenda is a promise by leaders to all people everywhere,” he explained, presumably conflating “leaders” with mass-murdering gangsters such as Kim Jong Un, Raul Castro, and Robert Mugabe who somehow managed to seize control over entire nations. “It is a universal, integrated and transformative vision for a better world.”

Admissions from Alarmists “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

Dr. Richard Lindzen is anything but convinced by headlines claiming 2015 is the warmest year on record. He says what’s most important is that climate models have been over-predicting warming for more than 40 years. “Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend,” Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, tells the science blog Climate Depot. “Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?” “All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations,” Lindzen says. “Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity.” Scientists with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared 2015 the hottest on record Wednesday, with the average global temperature reaching 0.87 degrees Celsius above the 20th century average. Democrats and environmentalists used the news to push for more government action on global warming, but what they neglected to mention is temperatures were driven up last year by an incredibly strong El Niño — a naturally occurring warming event. The strong El Niño briefly brought global temperatures to levels predicted by most climate models, but it’s likely that once the warming event goes away temperatures will move back down to levels well below what climate scientists say will happen if more carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere. “But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen says. Lindzen and other experts skeptical of hyped-up claims about man-made global warming argue those who claim 2015 is the hottest on record ignore the fact the changes in global temperature being observed are very small. He also cautions that surface-based temperature readings — taken by weather stations, buoys, ships and other means — are subject to biases and errors that can make them highly unreliable. Lindzen has pointed out in the past that “70% of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well.” “They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree,” he said in November. “Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.” Check out some of the badly sited weather stations collecting data:

Prof Peter Ridd: the Great Barrier Reef recovers, our science institutions are failing us, science needs to be checked The coral reef recovers. Peter Ridd: Coral Reefs recover — “the scientists make hay when it dies in a spectacular way but they are quiet when it recovers.” On symbionts — “There is a large variety of symbionts and some allow coral to grow faster but are more sensitive to bleaching.” All the corals on the Great Barrier Reef live and grow much faster in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and Thailand where the water is much hotter than it is on the reef and the corals just juggle these symbionts. 4:20 Corals have a little thermometer built in them, when you take a core of them from many years ago we know what the temperature of the water was back when Captain Cook sailed up the coast, it was actually about the same temperature then. It was colder 100 years ago, but it has recovered from that. The temperatures on the reef are not even significantly warmer than average on a hundred year timescale. Corals that bleach in one year will be less susceptible to bleaching in following years.

Global Climate Monitoring: The Accuracy of Satellite Data March 12, 1997 Recently, much scientific debate has focused on the global temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere as measured by orbiting satellites. And while these data are exceedingly precise, verified by multiple satellite observations, and balloon measurements taken in-situ, they reveal no discernable warming trend in the Earth's lower atmosphere over the last 18+ years. OK 2017 The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia. OK. Got it. In the 1997 top NASA article they say there's been "no warming for 18+ years" and in 2017 NASA says "unprecedented decades of warming since the mid-20th century". Due to humans of course. But what about the concerns for global cooling in 1975 ? Only a deranged Leftist doesn't see hypocrisy here. Especially when satellite data doesn't show warming for 20 years. And minimum arctic sea ice extent is greater in 2017 than 2007.

But hang on. NASA and NOAA have shown that 1940 through to 1978 wasn't so cold after-all. You mean they rewrote records to suit their global warming aim ? 1975 : Ice Age Coming – Global Cooling To Cause Terrorism And Nuclear Blackmail