Wrecker45

Clutching at straws? You just admitted you need to use hyperbole in the climate debate, otherwise, everyone will realise it is just cyclical. Nothing epitomises the climate alarmist industry more. What's more in post #647 in this thread you question why predicting a climate change prior to it happening is important. To spell it out for you global warming / climate change is a theory. Anything that was not predicted does not fit the theory.

The same thing happened to me except i don't have a maid or tinea.

Explain to me which part i got wrong? It is pretty clear you condone hyperbole to make a point on climate change.

Haha so by your own reasoning you need to use hyperbole, otherwise, it could be seen as just cyclical. Have a look at yourself.

Hardtack show me the IPCC report or science that predicted the bleaching of the reef. Demonstrate to me that current bleaching is unprecedented. I can save you time. You can't. This is becoming tiresome. The climate change predictions are duds then the alarmist industry leaches onto some kind of change they didn't predict and claim it as evidence of climate change.

I hate to spell it out to you hardtack but... 9/11 happened in front of our eyes and Climate change theory is a set of predictions that have been proven false time and time again. How you could fail to see the difference is telling.

I notice China hasn't offered to stump up the $2b American shortfall to the UN just yet. It's a shame for those on the gravy train that $2b paid for lots of important long lunches, junkets and dud predictions.

Re the first point you are saying you want to stay on the side of caution which a text book example of precautionary principle and it is a flawed principle. on the second point it is pretty clear the figures are being fudged and have been fudged. If that falsifies climate change consider it falsified. What I was saying is I don't think climate change can be falsified. There is ample evidence of scientists colluding and fudging figures yet that doesn't sway opinion of believers. Certainly the climate failing to do as predicted by the models hasn't falsified it. No matter what happens people go on believing.

In my humble opinion that is a flawed argument on a number of levels. Firstly it is a form of Precautionary Principal which is flawed because it can be used to justify anything and therefore justifies nothing. Secondly you can't be wrong. I've asked you a number of times how global warming theory can be falsified and you have yet to come back with an answer. That says to me it is more clairvoyant prediction than scientific theory.

Just to be clear I was not saying the reef was fine based on my personal experience. I was asked if I had been there recently and I had. The part I was in near Cairns was beautiful. The Clive James article is packed full of facts and historical comparisons. Diatribe it is not. Your above passage above on Rex Tillerson is a better example of an attack on the player not the ball.

America is automatically reducing their emissions because of the booming fracking industry. Trump pulled the plug on the money to the UN. Is the mayor of Pittsburg going to tip in the $2 billion?

Happy to have a bet on this. Unlike climate change this is measurable. I'm betting China wont pay the $2 billion shortfall Trump has left the UN by pulling out of the Paris Accord. Do we have a bet?

Speak for yourself. I have an idea. There is not a snow flakes chance in hell China is going to pay the UN $2 billion to solve an imaginary problem.

So do you think China will fill the $2 billion void to the UN left by Trump or not?

Trump has locked America out of what? Do you really think China is stupid enough to give the UN money to find a solution for an imaginary problem? Of course they're not and when nobody is funding the gravy train it will come to a screeching halt. Anyone who wants to stop dealing with America can do so at their own peril. Australia certainly wont. I'll laugh if the EU does because they are a sinking ship.

How is climate change falsifiable? You obviously still believe in it despite all the dud predictions.

Nup. The differnce is the first case is falsifiable and the second is not. Any expert who deals in diagnosis or predictions that are not falsifiable are frauds.

If an expert tells me the building is about to collapse i get out as well. If a field of experts tell me every building is at risk of fire, flood and cyclone then when one occurs claim it as evidence of their warning i will tell them it is a junk prediction.

ProDee - you mustn't have got the memo. That's not how it works, you're not actually supposed to hold the predictions to account. The alarmist predictions create a headline then you just forget about it and when a naturally occuring event happens you claim that as evidence of climate change. Like the 2009 bushfires.

Sorry the 2009 bushfire killed people you know. If you want to believe it was global warming that caused the fire thats fine. Logic says otherwise. Problem is you can't logic with someone who holds an opinion that wasn't formed with logic in the first place.

Hey EH i have been for a swim recently on the great barrier reef and it was magnificent. On August 3, 1971 The Sydney Morning Herald predicited the great barrier reef would be dead in 6 months. It wasn't and any crazy prediction you believe now is likely to be on par with that for accuracy.

Sounds like a hole lot of spin and and hoo ha to me. But maybe China will commit to reducing their carbon emissions stymie their economic growth and make America Great Again.

China has agreed to push forward in not cutting its carbon emissions until beyond 2030?

Bye bye Paris Agreement. Trump is bringing the climate change gravy train to a screaching halt.

Trump has pulled out of the Paris Agreement. I don't care much for American politics but Climate Change is something i feel very strongly about. So thankful for Trump on this.Hopefully it has a domino effect and Australia comes to in senses and sees Climate Change for the Marxist con it is. Carbon Dioxide = Plant Food