Wrecker45

The events in Paris are nothing but tragic. I probably should have been clearer in my post. The G20 agenda should be about real world problems and following the tragic events it will be.

Whilst we probably differ on the amount the PC brigade has over stepped the mark I agree for the most part again

My thoughts on cannabis are exactly the same as nuclear power. If it the best available technology let's use it and get politics out of the way.

Choke - I agreed with you and I think that is what you are upset by.

I completely agree. A lifestyle of celibacy often leads to unnatural behavior. And on the whole statistics thing someone prone to unnatural behavior is probably more likely to choose an unorthodox lifestyle. We need to start identifying groups more likely to be problematic based on statistics and less worried about offending people. A sadly lost age old adage in modern society is "sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me" (Edit was to fix spelling)

The large majority of Muslims are peace loving. But it is increasingly obvious a small percentage are not. Anyone with the slightest ability in statistics or maths will tell you that the more Muslims you have in your society the greater chance of a terrorist attack. And before I get lampooned for this. Je suis Charlie.

Somehow I think Climate Change is off the front page of the G20 agenda. Where it belongs.

I got down there and had a look. Is it wrong if I had to choose between Viney and Daisy kicking from 35m out to win a Melbourne premiership I'd pick Daisy. She strikes it perfectly every time.

Jara - I don't think I ever said Flannery predicted the drought would be permanent? I've largely ignored Flannery because his alarmist views are so irrelevant. The only time I can see that I have spoken about him was in a response to a "Tim the target" mention on this page and you can see I have been more than fair to him.

Jara - why did you waste your time interviewing fire scientists, meteorologists and environmental historians when I know everything and you could have just asked me In all seriousness I will be asking father Christmas for your book and look forward to reading it.

Where do I start? Thought Juice Newton was the next Modra Brent Heaver Darren Cuthbertson Travis Johnstone (will always treasure him; but a couple of goals he kicked against Collingwood in his first season just roving and running into an open goal, where he could read it and no one else could. He was almost like the bloke in the matrix just dodging bullets. He really could have been the one) Jordie McKenzie Jeremy Howe (he has some kind of accuracy problem with his his kicking but he strikes the ball so purely so I kept forgiving) Cale Morton (WTF happened he started like a young Travis Johnstone but progressed even worse) Matthew Bate (That nobody else picked him up after our desisting was very telling)

EH - You say some people made statements big deal? I am linking to quotes from the BOM and CSIRO. That is not some people, they are supposed to be our peak scientific bodies in this field. Real world data proves them wrong as it does time and time again. That is my whole "frickin" point, their predictive models are wrong. Just wait till 2020 when we still have snow in Australia despite the CSIRO's predictions. Then I will really rant. You say the physics are indisputable? You obviously don't understand physics very well. The physics of gravity are disputable and they're a damn site tighter than any climate change physics and application in a chaotic system. Not attacking you personally just your understanding of physics. I loathe ad hominem attacks. Let me know who I personally attacked and I will apologise (dee-luded you might be in for an apology). But I think you will find in the post you are referring to I was just linking to quotes from the two peak scientific bodies on climate in Australia. I'm sorry if the peak scientific bodies are hopelessly wrong time and time again but that is my point. How is fact based evidence a personal attack on someone? And as for "Tim the target" (I was linking to BOM and CSIRO quotes not Tim's) he is probably a bit unlucky. I'l give you a spring racing analogy. There are plenty of celebrity tipsters who never back a winner over their lifetime and still get a tip in the paper every week. It is just a shame that "Tim the target" is the go to man at the ABC when they should interview someone with more credibility or at the very least put their heavily tax payer funded, fact checking unit onto him.

Arguments and intellectual dialogue are not mutually exclusive and I'm not sure how my linking to quotes from the BOM and CSIRO is arguing. The only argument is if you are disagreeing with the referenced quotes? I would love nothing more than to engage in intellectual dialogue on this matter but if (when) dialogue contradicts real world data I will call it out (with reference) every single time.

You can't be serious? That swiss cheese article has so many holes I sometimes can't even understand what it is talking about. What is your contention?

Jara - Dr David Jones the head of BOM's climate analysis predicted that it could be permanent in 2008. This drought may never break. A 3 year collaboration between BOM and the CSIRO suggested in 2009 we are just not going to have that good rain again while the system is heating up. So yes Australia's two peak scientific bodies were that dogmatic.

Hi Jara I'm no expert like the fire scientist but wouldn't the heat of the fire be directly proportional to the fire load? That is, if you had some mad green council that wouldn't allow you to do controlled burns or other proven fuel reduction methods you would have a massive fuel load and therefore worse fires when they occur? Understand your point on drought length and severity but at that time we were being told that particular drought could (would) be permanent as a consequence of climate change. Turns out it wasn't. Another dud climate change prediction.

Choke - I meant to say that I if I was asked that loaded question, I would agree and fall within the 97% that Obama keeps quoting as proof of man made climate change.

hardtack I have no vested interest in the fossil fuel industry outside of cheap energy for my family on a personal level and wanting the third world to come out of poverty on a humanitarian level. You are mistaken in saying I'm assaulting the possibility global warming could be real. I believe it could be. It's just that all the available evidence (real world data not predictions) at the moment says it is not real. I will change my mind if the evidence changes.

Earl Hood I have consistently provided links to satellite data to back up the hiatus. The IPCC acknowledges the hiatus. Who has their head in the sand? You say some 350 months have been above average temperatures since the 80's. I laugh. From when were the averages measured? I'm guessing the Little Ice Age but it is your stat so please let me know. And to suggest asking some locals in the South Pacific if they have observed sea level rises rather than recognising the global satellite imagery really hammers home who has their head in the sand.

EH - I couldn't agree more. The world hasn't warmed as predicted, the hurricanes haven't increased in intensity or frequency as predicted, the seas haven't risen as predicted. All the above are measurable FACTS contrary to the predictions (or what is loosely called the science). If you can't explain the pause you can't explain the cause. But it is politics we're talking about not science. Take out the vested interest of the green groups particularity the renewable sector and global warming is solved. How many posters on this forum think it is ok for Essendon to lose or suppress their records in the supplements saga? I'd guess no-one. But you will hear posters on here defending the "scientific" bodies that hide the method of their studies to try and pretend things like the hiuatus aren't happening. Take for example NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association) who wont adhere to a supbonea from Congress for their records. They are being questioned on their findings that there is statistical warming over the last 18 years contrary to all the satellite data. Of course NOAA say everything is above board, they will not show their records, it is everyone else' fault and stop picking on us. Just like Essendon.

I love coal because it is cheap energy and raises people in the 3rd world out of poverty. I'm a humanitarian in that regard. I am also happy to talk about any harmful consequences of fossil fuels that effect the local environment or health of those around it. That is where the argument should be at. Carbon Dioxide is plant food and good for the planet. Let's talk about harmful emissions and their consequence and mitigate against them.

What you are arguing seems remarkably like precautionary principle and this is again where we differ. You can argue anything has massive consequences if you don't adhere to a set of beliefs, so you better just adhere to them, or else. Should I start going to church on a Sunday (instead of the crappy fixture Melbourne keep being dealt) because if I don't I could go to hell? Better just go incase because hell seems like a nasty place... I'd rather argue the principle than some potential outcome. I'm not a big believer in water being turned into wine but I will be the first investor if someone shows me how. I also don't believe in rampant warming when the models have been proven wrong by evidence and we are relying on the same models to predict future climate. 97% of scientist's agree in a debunked "survey" that humans are having some impact on climate. So do I.

Choke - Appreciate your response. If we had rampant global warming over the last 20 years, as predicted, I would be in the alarmist camp. I wouldn't be waiting for a long enough timeline of data. Would you be calling for more time to verify as opposed falsify too if we had warmed as predicted?

We've had terrible (local not global) bush fires previously but not terrible droughts?

CBF - The Summary for Policy Makers (political Section) of the IPCC reports is finalised before the science. I am happy to go into greater detail and explanation if you have an open mind. I don't say this in a condescending way. By all means if you prove to me that the science comes before the politics I am open to change my mind. The fact is the IPCC has a contention to find Carbon Dioxide has an impact on climate and after the scientists act on that; the Summary for Policy Makers is agreed apon and the politicians agree on the Statements released to the media.