Jara

I'll give you a science experiment you can conduct in your own home. Fill your bath with water (pretend it is the ocean) get a source of heat, maybe borrow Dieters hydroponic lights (pretend it is the sun) exhale in front of it (you don't even need to pretend that is carbon dioxide) and see if the heat can somehow magically get to the bottom of the bath. Surely that depends upon the strength of the source of heat?

Or a forehand criticism of you...

Thanks Wrecker - I'm impressed that you would go to such trouble to refute the article - would you be willing to go to the extra trouble of passing your criticism on to the journal itself? (Or to Professor England, if I can get his email address?)

Wrecker - I'm puzzled by your claim that Climate Science is a pseudo science. What on earth (or in your mind, not necessarily the same thing) qualifies you to make such a claim? If you feel competent and knowledgeable to make such judgements, perhaps you could demonstrate this by showing me where Mathew England, a world-famous Australian climate scientist who has just won the international Tinker-Muse prize, has got it wrong in the following article: England, M. H., J. B. Kajtar, N. Maher, 2015: Robust warming projections despite the recent hiatus, Nature Climate Change, 5, 394-396, doi:10.1038/nclimate2575. ∗NCC link∗Reprint including S.I. Are you saying Professor England is a pseudo-scientist? He's not some outer-suburban nutter: he's a leader in his field, with a lifetime of research, peer-review and prizes behind him.

"in fact, I reckon you guys are probably their scriptwriters." Nah, they're not good enough.

"I don't know if you are taking the [censored], serious, or out of your depth." All of the above. You said that the BOM has admitted to falsifying figures. All I said was that, if indeed they have done admitted to falsifying the figures, and you can show me where they admit it, sure, I'd believe it. Could I ask you a quick question in return? Are there any Australian climate scientists (and I mean actual climate scientists, qualified, professional experts, not like your IPA entomologist or geologists like Bob Carter, or even retired weathermen) who disagree with the view that the climate is heating up and that our actions are causing it? I was thinking about this the other day when I was listening to Andrew Blot. He's always crapping on about it to his fellow genius Steve Price and their audience of retired newsagents, but I've never heard him in debate with somebody who knows what they're talking about.

Sure. If, as you say, they admit they've falsified it, why would I doubt them? They are the BOM, after all. I believe them every morning when they give me the forecast. Don't you?

Sorry for slow reply. Family troubles. Will answer this one first - have to be quick - very busy. Not disputing what the woman says. She's right, of course - the BOM are in on the conspiracy. I met some of those guys - yep, conspirators to a man. They're all fudging the figures. And she should know - she's got a degree in... er entomology is it? Her blog says she's got a PhD in something, but she doesn't say what (bit strange, that - most of the people I know who've got doctorates can't shut up about em). Never mind - she's the IPA's expert on climate change and I'm with her - and you - all the way. I only mentioned the IPA connection because, while you and I are men of the world and know about these things, the younger reader may not realise that the people who employ her are a group of right-wing libertarians who receive their funding from big business, including tobacco companies and a woman in Perth who inherited billions of dollars and yet grumbles because Australian workers won't work for African wages.

This woman works for the IPA. Who funds them? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-24/hamilton-the-shadowy-world-of-ipa-finances/3849006

I thought I was being friendly too (I did say it would be fascinating) . Of course I didn't really think you were going to come round and wreck me -that was meant to be a joke. I've never used the PM facility. Happy to do so; I was just asking how one does it. Not sure what you mean by saying something was wrong with the link to the SMH article - I just tried it and it worked fine.

Oops - sorry, yeah, it was TGR. You know what these lefties are like - they all look the same to me

Sure, Wrecker - that would be fascinating. How does one "PM"? (Or does one want to?! Once you know who I am you may come round and wreck me!)

Wrecker, I think you misread his post. Your "obvious" one isn't as obvious as you seem to think it is. TGR wasn't criticising flag bearers per se, he was criticising Bolt, Bernardi etc for being flag-bearers of the right. You are also rather prone to pointless generalisations. You'd probably call me "of the left" but I don't loathe myself at all.

Now I'm confused, but I think this is the nub of the article, which is describing accelerated rises in global sea levels: "It's definitely faster than historical periods. In 1900 we were talking about 1.6 to 1.7 millimetres per year. Now we have roughly 3 millimetres per year. By the end of this century, we're talking about maybe 5 to 8 millimetres per year." He added that over 25 years, the largest contribution, of around 1 millimetre per year, "is not from land ice ... in fact it's from the thermal expansion [when the ocean expands due to ocean warming]." Overall, the study found that "while the rate of ocean thermal expansion has remained steady since 1993, contributions from ice sheets and glaciers have increased from about half of the total rise in 1993 to around 70 per cent in 2014." Dr Zhang said the research highlights the importance of mitigating climate change and committing to coastal adaption plans to reduce the impact of ongoing sea level rise." On the other hand, the fact that the guy's Chinese probably confirms Prodee's suspicions that it's a Commie plot.

For god's sake, Prof, can you try to be a bit more succinct.

Not quite sure if you're joking. Anyway, in case you're not, I think satellite imagery is improving all the time - i.e. achieving higher resolution. That's "refined". The more accurate, the better, surely? (unless you're poor old Prodee - he'd be up there with his Box Brownie trying to show that it's all a hoax)

OMG - the Chinese are in on the conspiracy! http://www.smh.com.au/environment/rate-of-global-sea-level-rise-jumps-50-per-cent-in-two-decades-20170626-gwyu52.html

Hey B - I'm staggered by population growth as well - gives the bosses a pool of slaves to choose from and keeps wages down. Dunno about a lot of your suggestions, but I'd support a dramatic reduction in migration. I'm all for being harder on terrorists, but can't come at the death penalty.

Hey Wrecker - I'll have a look at it, but I get put off by the headline. "Global warming is a religion"? Hard to argue against the logic of that - there isn't any. There's lots of reputable info on-line about Climategate - this one looks interesting. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.WU8p-xTeqFI The sad thing is all the climate-deniers will refuse to read it because it goes against their confirmation bias.

But I wasn't asking to be forgiven for a poor argument - I've put up a few good ones on this thread (and, alas, a few dodgy ones - I do tend to shoot from the hip when I'm tired or rushing to respond while trying to do a million other things) but you do occasionally make me question my blasé assumptions, which is worthwhile. I don't know that I'd call myself left-wing these days. Sounds a bit French Revolutionish - that's over now, we won that one (Zhou En Lai may beg to differ).

Great Post, Nut. Me love The Teskeys.

Hi Wrecker - sorry, it's a complicated site - I don't want you to bother unless you feel like it - I also don't want to get into an argument - (well, not with you, anyway - you're too clever - wouldn't mind one with Pro) The Mundine article (which I did finally get around to reading) was mainly talking about the costs of alternative energy, the cheapness of coal, etc - I gather it was a response to the Finkel report (it didn't, of course, say anything about the cost of doing nothing) On the Climate Council link there's their own response to Finkel - 10 Basic Electricity Facts, I think - why don't you have a look at those? Tell me if you disagree with them. I should say I put more faith in The Climate Council than Mundine - everything they say seems to be backed up by peer-reviewed research. I originally threw in this challenge (I think) because you were saying how easy it was for you to pull apart the arguments of those concerned about climate change (I personally find it very difficult to refute something like the Mundine article - takes a fair bit of time, and I'm very busy) (I'm tempted to say his writing has improved since he became Gerard Henderson's son-in-law, but I suppose Daisy would say I'm being ad hominem again )

Sorry I was slow in responding, Prof - I was coming home from work - and eating dinner. You're right, as always. You're certainly interested in debating - What a debater - 3652 posts! A mass debater! No wonder you don't have time for us mere mortals.

But...but Prof - you seem unhappy - there must be a misunderstanding. I'm supporting you. You've convinced me - climate change is a hoax. Arizona is fake news. I'm with you all the way.

Wow! More indisputable scientific evidence from Professor Pro and that venerable, world-leading, peer-reviewed scientific journal...Breitbart! Yay! Stop worrying, folks - the crisis is over. The Prof knows more than all of those ignorant world leaders and their sneaky scientific advisors who signed the Paris Accord put together. And the fact that Arizona is suffering the worst ever recorded heat wave, beating the one it had er.. last year...? Coincidence! Pure coincidence. .