Wrecker45

Nutbean can you point me to the science that said the ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than the land and atmosphere from before the land and atmosphere went into hiatus ie. before 1998 Or is it, as I suspect, another after the fact convenience?

P-man do you deny the hiatus? Do you argue there is statistically significant warming since 1998?

Fair enough P-man. I don't think either of us is going to change the mind of the other on who is the worse Government. Probably no point banging heads on it.

The average global temperature is supposed to be two hundreths of a degree warmer in 2014 than 2010. The margin of error is supposed to be .1c. This is not statistically significant and in no way disproves the hiatus.

I am not sure how many times I can explain that we have not warmed (statistically speaking) since 1998. But those years between 1998 and now are still our warmest. Read the example on my cousins height. It shouldn't be a difficult concept. I'll give you another example. Shares in BHP have been going up since 1850. At 1998 they hit a record price. The Share price hasn't risen since, Iits been in hiatus, but the CEO wants a bonus based on the share price being higher than it ever has been for 9 of the last 10 years. Mind you the analysts had been predicting greater than inflation growth over that period. The reason I keep referencing the IPCC, the self appointed peak body in climate change, is to point out the ridiculousness. Are you going to answer my question?

I keep explaining that as well. We have warmed since the little ice age. Warming peaked at 1998, the plateau since is called I hiatus. The IPCC acknowledges the hiatus do you?

As long as there are no more Obama's in the pipeline we can sleep well.

I have a feeling it could be more than 1 of those 3 that surprises. McKenzie's bad disposal is the biggest exaggeration on demonland. He is no Salem but he is no Godfrey either. He did one of the worst kicks of all time last year but he also set up the goal that won us the game against Essendon with pin point disposal under immense pressure. That was no fluke.

Interesting about the fun and games bit. I saw Peter Moody speak about 2 years ago and he talked about keeping his horses stimulated. Everyday he would get them to do something different rather than the same monotonous routine and he credited that tactic as a cornerstone to his success. Mind you he wasn't under investigation for cobalt at that stage.

Gillard promised a surplus (And today I can assure every Australian that their Budget will be back in surplus in 2013) Gillard promised to cut company tax and after the election scrapped the cut Gillard promised $2.1 billion for a transport link in Western Sydney. Not built. Gillard’s promise to Wilkie on Pokie reforms. He ended up withdrawing support for the Government over it Cash for Clunkers (Old car owners will score a $2000 rebate if they buy a new fuel-efficient vehicle, under a “cash for clunkers” scheme) Gillard promised an automatic tax deduction of $1,000 Gillard promised to build mor GP super clinics (she delivered on 1 of 28) The Royal Commission into union corruption found Gillard had told “untruths”

Yeah I think the world is going to warm to the temperature of the sun???? WTF??? I am not going to respond to any more of your posts on this matter, unless they make a little bit of sense or you answer the question I have asked time and time again. Point me in the direction of any scientific body that predicted the hiatus instead of rapid warming. Otherwise, explain to me why we are still believing the predictions of the same people that have got it so wrong?

Hahaha. Been a really cold summer locally we must be in for global cooling.

Clearly we are on different wavelengths. My cousin has been the same height for the last 10 years and they have all been his tallest, he just stopped growing. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, but it is exactly the same as the warming, only difference is it could warm again and my cousin wont grow. If it rains somewhere the modellers are wrong? No the people who said it wouldn't rain again and predicted permanent drought are wrong. As far as I know it was only Tim Flannery making those type of predictions and not the IPCC.

By all means, list the ones you see as broken promises. That is, saying you'll take one action and then doing the opposite. Let's compare your Gillard list with Abbott's, who is just half way through his first term. You said that Gillard has broken only 1 pledge and I ridiculed that. Again I ask would you like me to list some of her broken promises and when I do will you admit that you were biased or at least correct your statement? You've failed to address ANY of the ones I've listed. Not a single one. I have no idea if you agree they're all lies to be condemned because you won't talk about them. I cannot make it any clearer for a 3rd time. I agree with you and am not arguing. I'm not addressing any of the ones you have listed because I have agreed Abbott has lied. I'll take your word for it on the list. Take them all as lies. Trying to compare Abbott’s lies with Gillard’s (over and over and missing my point) is just demonstrating your cheerleading. I’ll give you an example that is easy for you. That is both Abbott lies because you don’t notice any of Gillard\s. Abbott said he would repeal 18c of the Discrimination Act and had reneged on his promise. Abbott has also said that he would not cut funding to the ABC and since cut the funding. Both lies. There are not degrees of lies. Just because left wing nuts wanted 18c kept as is and ABC funding maintained or increased doesn’t change the fact Abbott lied equally on both. You won't talk about the carbon tax because you probably know nothing of it except that Gillard said she wouldn't introduce one. I would love nothing more than to talk about the carbon tax (and the validity of climate change). Have a look at the thread in general discussions about climate change at the moment. Perhaps you can answer the question I have been asking for 2 pages that all the alarmists are dodging. You then take the absurd position that Abbott is to be praised for delivering on his "core promises". What were the core promises that Gillard promised before the election and then delivered? Abbott was very clear and repetitive on those promises. He has delivered. Just because you tack a three word slogan onto something so fools can easily digest it doesn't make it any more important than saying you won't slash the health budget, funding to schools, or introduce new taxes. Those are pretty big deals. Much bigger than saying you'll scrap a mining tax. No. Again you put more importance on your values and political prejudices than transparent governance. Whilst I don’t doubt the purity of your values the practice is bordering on Totalitarian. I think it's plainly evident which one of us has the bigger political prejudice. I've voted for the Coaliton before. Have you ever voted Labor? Let me take a wild stab and guess, no. I haven’t voted Labor federally because they haven’t been worthy in my lifetime (I missed Keating and Hawke). For what it is worth I have voted Labor in State elections. Ffs, you actually want to let these clowns stick around for "consecutive adult governments". At the moment but that is only because Shorten hasn’t given me an alternative to vote for. I hope he does.

Absolutely, except I'm not sure where the 12 years comes from, and I am pointing out the ridiculousness of it. Thanks for highlighting that. The time frame of rapid (unprecedented) warming and the hiatus are both similar in length. You can't say we had unprecedented warming without saying it has stopped (hiatus). The unfortunate thing is that the IPCC and its warming models predicted rapid warming, without the hiatus, over that period of time. Again I ask if you, or anyone else, can give point me to any scientist or scientific body that predicted the hiatus? If all the science was predicting rapid warming over that period and the warming didn't eventuate, what does that say about the science?

Gillard really broke only one pledge? Do you need me to list examples of the others like I did for her policy failures? Are you really that naïve or wilfully blind? A lie is a lie and should not be tolerated regardless of its merits. If you are honest with yourself you should put Abbott's lies in the same basket as Gillard's and stop sugar coating the ones made by Gillard. Your merits are in line with your political prejudices.

You just keep proving my point.

I hope so!. And I'm not calling him slow, just not super fast,

And I've pointed out why I refuse to buy into the context issues around the cuts to the ABC. If Abbott lies I will call it out for what it is. I guess that's where our differences lie. I'll happily call a spade a spade without watering it down, calling a beat-up or making excuses.

Probably not related but let's hope so.

Don't want to burst the bubble and I actually rate Toumpas' pace but JKH isn't actually that fast in a straight line. Just very creative.

I don't know how many times I can explain to you I deplore broken political promises no matter who makes them. You seem to think they are much worse when Abbott makes them.

Superbowl?

P-man if you read my posts you will notice I have been equally critical of Abbott's lies. Infact, I think the ABC needs massive cuts if not privatisation, however, given Abbott said there will be no cuts to the ABC in the election campaign I am scathing on him for the small ones he has introduced. Notice I don't call the cuts "Efficiency Dividends" because I am not a cheerleader. Yet you will see those cheerleaders of the opposite persuasion say it wasn't really a carbon tax and was really in Gillard's platform. I am not that shallow and will call a spade a spade.

Thanks dee-luded. I encourage everyone to go to as many seminars as they can if they have an interest in climate change. I certainly do. I guess the only difference is I listen to the "deniers" as well as the "alarmists". It's not the labels that interest me but the evidence they present. You can assure me the threat is real all you like but you have not explained to me why the hiatus, now acknowledged by the IPCC, completely contrary to the predictions of the IPCC, is not a serious concern to the credibility of the organisation and the science. Why is everybody dodging this questions? Lord Mockton awaits me? Did you post a picture of him to try and discredit "deniers" based on the fact he has Graves disease which causes his eyes to bulge? If so that says a lot more about your argument than mine.