Monday, October 13, 2014

A simple blog sparked this on AGW


Sandra Maiden What a load of old horse feathers.

David Daniel Ball .. all the statements are backed up by articles .. feel free to challenge them if you work out what it is that you disagree with.

Paul Corrigan Work out!Anyone?

Bob Lawson Your a blogger David Daniel Ball. Your facts don't even tally with the statement the other day from the federal weather people saying that an enormous chunk of the Antarctic ice sheet has recently broken off and is slowly heading north. Please mate before you put this nonsense in print at least try to refute the weather science first. While some of modelling I think is the worst possible scenario there is no doubt that the earth's climate is warming and greenhouse gases not just CO2 that are man made are the major cause.

Bob Lawson Before you challenge me on academic grounds David Daniel Ball. I have three degrees. One in biology, another in industrial chemisty and third a masters degree in medicine. So I know what I am talking about where as you obviously don't.

David Daniel Ball Bob, The reason for the large chunk breaking off .. because there is so much ice .. the weight .. can't support it.

Bob Lawson Your understanding of physics is as flawed as your climate change sceptic blog mate. Here are the facts mate; the strengh of frozen H2O is reliant on temperature and temperature only. The warmer it gets the less ordered and therefore the less cohesive the water molecules become. The ice event I quoted has been completely stable for all of recorded history mate. Now all of a sudden it isn't. This is nothing to do weight Daniel just temperature. There you go you have eve learned some first year Uni physics.

David Daniel Ball lol .. and yet the AGW alarmist I quoted admitted it was building up and claimed the models predicted that .. argue with them ..

Bob Lawson You can find any looney to back up any point of view. The ice chunk that broke off is as big as some European countries. No I chose to argue with you and your no nothing and do nothing blog. My science is based on the properties of physics David Daniel Ball. They are not open to spin or selective interpretation by you or any other ratbag climate change sceptic. Thank god you people are in an ever decreasing minority.

David Daniel Ball dream on, Bob .. know nothing ..

David Daniel Ball .. thing is .. that guy you call looney is one of yours .. but a leader of yours .. and credentials that exceed your first year science. I'm not arguing my observations. Were I to do so I would point out that the Weather guy who is AGW alarmist is also on average 10 degrees off every single night .. always predicting more than I experience .. just an observation.

Katrina Anthoney Mr Lawson, having triple degree's doesn't make you an expert, sorry if your science isn't swallowed by everyone. The average Joe Blo has every right to question your science. Also people are sick of being fed by Academics that claim they are right, yet prophesies, remain just that, as the years go by.

John Tran Lol.. DDB, it looks like the trio of Green/Labor/SocialistAlternative decided to have a go at you yesterday. We missed the fun.

David Daniel Ball lol yeah .. I caught it in todays blog .. though ..

Bob Lawson Yes David Daniel Ball I use voice to text on my mobile and more than occasionally it throws up spelling errors. No mate you dream on. You are obviously uneducated in even basic 1st year Uni physics. The dumbest undergraduate will quote you exactly what I have above. You people are the worst frauds and naysayers on the planet. You are out of step with the majority of the scientific community of which I am a very small (but educated) part. You can't just state something as fact and not defend your argument. Oh but wait you can if you are a blogger. Where is the your peer review Daniel. Where is your methodology explained in arriving at what you claim as fact. In short that is the difference between an opinion piece such as your rag and a proper scientific dissertation. And if these words are too big for you to understand I suggest you go and get a few science degrees like I have and maybe you will understand the difference between a blog (opinion piece) and a proper evaluation of the facts.

Bob Lawson Question the science by all means but do it from an educated point of view not personal opinion Katrina Anthoney. All of the climate sceptics just say I don't believe this,well that's an opinion it isn't based on any fact or science.

Cameron David 95% of computer models predicted increasing ice, and its shrinking. What else do you need to know ?

Bob Lawson Out of mouths if babes David Daniel Ball. By your own admission you are part of a climate change sceptic blog. And by the way moron I don't vote left or Green. I am a firmly ensconced liberal. By the way this is classic blogger behaviour Daniel if you can't attack the science attack the person. Good luck with that by the way.

Peter Needham Bob. please explain the 18 year lack of warming. The IPPC have acknowledged it as a 'pause' if you want to read up on it.

Then please explain why NASA recently reported that the oceans are not warming - (that being the latest 'theory' on where the missing warming is going).

Your faith in your own 'intelligence' has you sitting either in a false sense of security or an inflated ego bubble.

And if you are so educated, why do you just flat out insult people with no provocation, who don't agree with you ?

You may have something worthwhile to say, but i wouldn't bother with it personally, being that you seem so emotional.

And don't get me started on how you are not a climate scientist.

Bob Lawson Exact Peter Needham. What you say is correct. The temperature increase on the planet is not a linear relationship to greenhouse gas emissions. It is influenced by other things. In scientific parlance these are called cofactors. The thing nobody quotes but is the major driving factor of all the planets weather is the sun. It has cycles of hotter and cooler radiation and at present it is coming to the end of a hot phase. This is masking to some extent what the underlying atmospheric temperature actually is. We will find out in 20 years and if we do nothing then even when the sun is radiating less energy the temperatures will still be high and by then it will he too late to stop this at all. That is a fact not a blog ir opinion piece as the rubbish spouted by David Daniel Ball is.

Nev Norton Hello, "The Conversation" has come to visit "BSG".

Bob Lawson Agree Peter Needham I am not a specialist weather scientist but unlike David Daniel Ball I understand the physics. He doesn't or he wouldn't make such silly comments. Insult him, yes I did; I do not tolerate bloggers pretending to knowlegible on climate change and spouting absolute rubbish and pretending it has any scientific basis.

Cameron David The length of the pause that is dismissed by climate scientists is the same length of real data on warming that was used to throw billions of dollars at leftist causes. Why is one considered immaterial and the other uncertain. It just goes to show that the science has been politicised.

Cameron David A big problem with climate "science" is that it isn't science as generally understood. Its a mishmash of computer predictions and the like, with bodgied base data sets controlled by a small number of individuals all in o the con (University of East Anglia - ClimateGate, NASA - Michale Mann of "Hide the Decline" and the atrociousl wrong hockey stick").

Why would anyone believe this crap any more than hucksters pushing snake oil ?

Bob Lawson No a non-linear relationship explains completely the pause you speak of between greenhouse gas emissions and increasing global temperatures. You need to understand the scientific terminology and what is meant by a non-linear relationship. The relationship is logarithmic. The nearest analogy would be the way earthquakes are measured. That is a jump in energy between a level 5 and level 6 quake is not one but 10 times stronger. That is increasing global temperatures will go up say one degree for a trillion tons of CO2. To go up another degree will take 10 trillion tons but it will still go up.

Peter Needham Bob - if the temperatures are not going up, how does a Log/Linear scale difference even matter? I think you mean a 'non-relative' relationship.

Like you mentioned, I also think it likely the sun affects the temperature. But we cannot control the sun at all.

Here is the article re NASA and the ocean temps if interested..
http://www.breitbart.com/.../Bad-news-for-the-alarmists...

Bad News for the alarmists: 'Missing Heat' from Non-Existent 'Global Warming' isn't...
BREITBART.COM

Peter Needham and.. http://a.disquscdn.com/.../images/1351/9760/original.jpg...

A.DISQUSCDN.COM


Bob Lawson Peter you obviously are a climate change sceptic and you are welcome to your opinion and all it is an opinion. The science and I stress the science is not an opinion but factual. The laws of physics are not an opinion. So keep your head in the sand mate. And keep to your opinion it isn't worth too much

Bob Lawson Your argument goes nowhere Peter Needham. So what are saying we can't control the sun so we can't control climate change. That's almost as silly a statement as the rubbush David Daniel Ball spouts as fact and which like is just personal opinion. What a load of absolute crap. You climate change naysayers are full of it mate.

Katrina Anthoney Some/many of the most successful people in the world, are formally 'uneducated'. Many who are extremely educated, are often very 'narrow minded', as they are focused on their educated theories. There is nothing wrong with that. However a broader outlook can be more realistic. Insulting someone as 'uneducated', simply because they don't agree with you is blinkered and demonstrates blindness. Assumptions are made, for example your assessment of my education level. Truth is I am quite well educated, but I don't go around bragging about it. Proof is in the pudding, isn't it? By the way, good assessment Peter.

Bob Lawson Just linked to your so called NASA SITE. It's yet another naysayers blog. You need to learn the difference between an opinion piece (blog) and a factual scientific dissertation.

Bob Lawson Good Katrina Anthoney yet anorher opinion. It's a free country and so you have an opinion. Good it promotes discussion. But that's all you people have "opinions."

Katrina Anthoney Don't underestimate the opinions of anyone, truth is; opinions promote change. I am not referring to climate, we have no control over that, yes you may argue that humans are the one's destroying the planet. However, the way the world is going at the moment, their will be few people left to observe it.

Bob Lawson Excellent a final blogger rort. Can't attack the science so attack person Katrina Anthoney.

And that's all you climate change sceptics are. Self perpetuating disseminators of gossip

Katrina Anthoney Lol, that's funny. I'm not attacking you, I'm just questioning your approach. It seems, that you can 'give it', but not 'take it'.

Bob Lawson Oh and the remark about me bragging about my qualifications and that I assumed you were not educated what's that then Katrina Anthoney

Bob Lawson My approach is not an approach it's a dissemination of the science. That's what climate change sceptics can never handle and your :approach" which is do nothing because we are all doomed anyway Hmmmmm! Well there's a scientific "approach" for you. If you go back to one if my initial statements Katrina Anthoney you will see that I said my personal opinion wss that some if the vlimate change models are over the top and worst possible case scenario. This extreme view does nobody any good either. But do nothing is the other extreme and even more dangerous

John Tran David Daniel Ball, this is not funny! I know you lack readership on your blogs, letting someone else to stir up people just to attract attention to it is Not the right way to do it!!!

Bob Lawson Exactly what they Mr John Tran blogs. Opinion pieces masquarading as science and a shocking fraud on the whole community

Cameron David When the climate industry is controlled by vested interest of course alternate opinions are shut out of the main journals. Go read the climategate emails on the steps taken to shut out dissenting voices. Step 1 was to stop non-warmist articles being published, rather than attacking the substance. Step 2 is to then reject them as "non peer reviewed". Good to see you got the memo bob.

Cameron David And that's the problem with your appeal to authority Bob. The gatekeepers have been shown to be total frauds.

Cameron David Let me summarise Bob's argument.


John Tran LOL

Bob Lawson If you want to see decent opinion then back to Cameron David. At least he is aware of the methodology of climate science prediction and some if the science behind it. Is this area if science politicized "yes" & it does nobody any good to leave it so and feeds the naysayers rubbish arguments and blogs like Mr David Daniel Ball's effort

Bob Lawson Never seen a properly peer reviewed journal article yet in any language regarding the non warming argument. Surely there would be some scientist somewhere in some county that could get one article published and there isn't one to date and that is because they all fall over at the peer review stage. None of the major science journals have published a single paper on your side of the argument. I await with much interest for No1. But congratulations Cameron David you at least have tried to make yourself aware of the science and you I will listen to

Bob Lawson This is a dead line if comment for me now. To comment more gives credence to David Daniel Ball's blog and it is a fraud by the way. No science involved here just personal opinion and gossip

Cameron David http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/.../how-climategate-killed.../

How Climategate killed 'peer review' – Telegraph Blogs
"Peer-review. Peer-review. Peer-review." This used to be...
BLOGS.TELEGRAPH.CO.UK

Bob Lawson Blogs.telegraph.co.uk etc. Etc. Notice the word "blog." Because that's what all of the no argument is "blogs."

Bob Lawson Just looked at your link Cameron David. It's yet another blog. Somebody says something is fact doesn't make it so. A photoshopped image is not proof positive of some sort of endemic conspiracy.

Peter Needham Lol Bob. If you are an example of a smart scientist, I shudder to think what is going on on that world.

1. This is not actually a Blog. its a facebook page.The correct terminology is "This Page".

2. The link I gave you is an article about the NASA data - I never said it IS the NASA data - you can find the data yourself I assume?

3. You started attacking the messenger on your first post. Now you are saying its weak to do that. Righto.

4. The fact you think you understand the science, and have your head so full of facts and figures doesn't really help this situation does it? All of what you base your knowledge on at best is modelling. The modelling has proven to be so inaccurate as to be worthless

I would suggest that you turn your attention to what is being DONE with the inaccurate science - that's where the issues that we are concerned with lie.

Case in point - Tim Flannery. None of his predictions have yet come true, and many are past used by.

We built a desalination plant based in part on his dire predictions. We put up windmill farms that are next to useless and as subsidised by the tax payer are a massive drain on scarce resources. We fund millions of dollars worth of bs projects "how do such and such relate to global warming"

And if you did have a more enlightened understanding of the politics of this science fraud, you would see that 2 things are important to the 'warmers'.

1. It’s not about science; it’s about government (tax-payer) grant money. The IPCC had a clause in their signup treaties that said that even if the science was wrong, it would not change the course of the policies. That's a bit like an accountant not being liable for the tax return they do for you.

2. The main issue though is that larger forces are at work here, and are planning to change the system of governance via trade treaties, and environmental laws, to make humans subservient to 'gaia' (mother earth) Dont laugh - I was stunned too. http://www.theblaze.com/.../what-is-agenda-21-after.../

You will probably scoff at this, but its real and happening now. Agenda 21 is being implemented in part in local councils - anything with 'sustainability' or 'smart' in its title is probably related.

And also realise, that while David Daniel Ball may only have a 'blog', that you are only a random and unknown visitor to his 'blog', and have no climate credentials in this field whatsoever, and nothing published, which leaves us only the wisdom in the actual comments you make for us to be persuaded or not by your argument.

But you went with the 'overweight bloke at the pool running jumping in and splashing everybody' approach which really doesn't really help us see anything enlightened or superior in your attitude.

And then crying 'offence'? - well really.

-----as an adjunct I thought the following might be of interest----

4 Scientists I would recommend for helping get a balanced viewpoint of both sides of the argument would be:

1. Professor Bob Carter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter
http://www.taxingair.com/ (his book)

2. Professor Les Woodcock
http://www.breitbart.com/.../Former-NASA-Scientist-Global...
http://www.climatedepot.com/.../another-prominent.../

3. Dr Roy Spencer PhD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

4. Dr Judith Curry (School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
http://www.climatedepot.com/.../climatologist-dr-judith.../

5. James Lovelock (head of 'green' movement) just for giggles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Gaia-scientist-James...

6. For more giggles Lord Monkton
http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Christopher_Monckton,_3rd...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_kvfo4ruNc

Also - from Bob Carters book:

DID YOU KNOW?

Just 8,000 years ago, there was virtually no summer sea-ice in the Arctic Ocean.

Sea-level rise is natural, and declining in rate.

Australian rainfall has not decreased over the last 100 years.

A previous Australian drought lasted 69 years.

By catchment management, the Murray-Darling Basin now contains almost 3 times as much water as it held naturally.

Global air temperature has not increased for the last 16 years, despite an 8% increase in CO2.

Global ocean temperature is also steady or cooling slightly.

Australian territory absorbs up to 20 times the amount of CO2 that we emit.

The CO2 tax will cost about $1,000/person/year; and rising.
The result of reducing Australian CO2 emissions by 5% by 2020 will be a theoretical (and unmeasurable) cooling of between 0.0007CO and 0.00007O C by 2100.

No scientist can tell you whether the world will be warmer or cooler than today in 2020.

What Is Agenda 21? After Watching This, You May Not Want to Know
Those who follow Glenn Beck might be aware that...
THEBLAZE.COM

Phill Reid Bob Lawson, I am of the opinion that you are a stupid, narrow minded hypocrite. You brag about your alleged qualifications. You criticize anybody who disagrees with you. You become personal when your argument and logic crumbles. People like you are an anomaly. Your ideas are dangerous yet you are actually the climate sceptics best friend because your behaviour shows everyone what idiots climate doomsayers like yourself are.

Bob Lawson Keep thinking that Phill Reid. Didn't do any if those things. I kept stating the facts. The facts are not palatable to climate change sceptics such as yourself. All you lot fall back on again and again is this conspiracy theory that somehow your argument is being suppressed by the scientific community. Well mate the reason we don't support you is that there is no science in your arguments just opinion and blogs.

Bob Lawson Been called a lot of things professionally but stupid wasn't ever one of them you twit

Bob Lawson No it is not NASA data it is a somebody said something to somebody at sone time blight on the facts. A blog in other words. Again mate you attack the person when your argument falls over. And it falls over with very little pushing

Phill Reid Well you've been called it now you stupid man. Go away, you are boring the shit out of the rest of us.

Phill Reid Did you notice the lack of "likes" on all your comments you silly man !!!

Bob Lawson I never cried offense Peter Needham. I pointed out to you a common debating trick. That is when your argument falls over and it does fall over by the way on so many levels you lot shoot the messenger. Keep taking aim mate because so far you haven't scored a hit

Phill Reid Bob Lawson, please go away because nobody here agrees with you and your mindless rants are becoming a nuisance.

Phill Reid I said "please", Bob.

Bob Lawson This a climate sceptic blog moron. I didn't expect any but I certainly have you naysayers wound up fit to bust (he he!!!).
I can keep these facts for ever you dill and attacking me just makes you the irrational one Phill Reid

Peter Needham I thought this was witty - a comment from a blog.

"Global Warming has become the religion of Geocalorianism. While we do have freedom of religion, we have separation of church and state, so the government should be prohibited from funding Geocalorian studies and projects.

Geocalorianisms chief doctrinal structure of "revealed truth."
Mankind exhales carbon dioxide. it is a sort of original sin, since this is an inborn genetically controlled trait.

The God Geocalorus is angered by this, and will turn the world into a burning hell as vengeance for sin against his divine majesty. In order to escape total destruction, all humankind must seek atonement through the mediation of Geocalorian priests, who charge handsomely for absolution, and who are exempt from any of the penalties of sin that the rest of mankind suffers. That's how religion works.

PRAYER FOR ABSOLUTION
O Great Geocalorus, we come to thee,
Trusting not in our own righteousness,
But in they manifold and great mercies.
Thou, who hast sent thy son, Al Gore
For to save us from our eternal sin.
We vouchsafe to thee our lives, and all our money
And property for the worship of thy holy name.
Again, and again, there is no end."

http://godfatherpolitics.com/.../global-warming-fear-is.../

'Global Warming’ Fear is about Money Not Science
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is spending...
GODFATHERPOLITICS.COM

Phill Reid I'm not attacking you Bob. I, like the majority of people here, would just like you to go away and leave us alone. Your not convincing anyone !!

Peter Needham Bob - just one thing - you hit the nail on the head

"And that's all you climate change sceptics are. Self perpetuating disseminators of gossip"

Except it should read

"And that's all you climate change alarmists are. Self perpetuating disseminators of bad politics"

Phill Reid Geez some people are persistent. !!!.

Phill Reid Why is it that some people just can't accept what others know to be facts !!

Bob Lawson The people yoyy quote likewise have not published a peer reviewed paper. Every time they try it doesn't make it past peer review. One day somebody on your side will put together a paper that gets published in reputable journal. When that happens I will read it with much interest

Bob Lawson No Phill Reid you like others have opinions. These are not to be confused with physics. You are showing your lack of understanding the difference mate

Peter Needham Bob - I suggest you look at those people again.

1. Bob Carter

He has published over 100 research papers on taxonomic palaeontology, palaeoecology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef, Quaternary geology, and sea-level and climate change.[5][6] Carter has published primary research in the field of
palaeoclimatology, investigating New Zealand's climate extending back to....

You can find the rest.

Phill Reid All your bloody points are just your opinion Bob. Nobody is going to write a paper about something that just is not happening. Now as I said previously, please go away. You are becoming rather annoying.

Bob Lawson Very clever opinion Peter Needham but again opinion only. Smart mate, very smart but not anything it that isn't opinion

Peter Needham Thanks Bob - for somebody as brilliant as you, I take that as a compliment lol But seriously - the wheels fell of the AGW argument last year - even the IPCC admits there is a 'pause'. So all those peer reviewed papers are pretty much wrong aren't they.

Bob Lawson No

Phill Reid Go and find a climate doomsayers site where you can all stroke each others egos by agreeing with each other.

Bob Lawson Circular and pointless mate. I state the facts you deny the facts and attack me. On and on

Peter Needham Bob - except you have not stated any climate change facts at all. Just opinions. I think you are rather enjoying this.. I am looking outside and thinking I should go for a swim though - its lovely and warm - instead of sitting on this computer arguing lol..

Phill Reid Why can't you understand that you will never convince anybody with your false data, Bob. Just GO AWAY !!!! You are wasting your time you obstinate fool.

Peter Needham I wish you all the best Bob - thanks for allowing me to practice my spelling and doing a little link gathering - I do hope you read my long winded post, it took a while to write! Its beautiful out, I'm going for a swim.

Phill Reid Your attitude that you have facts and we have opinions is one that I find insulting.

Bob Lawson Yes he is all of those Peter Needham. He is respected in his field of climate history. That's what he does by the way. The earth has had higher level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the past. He says that and I agree with that and so does everybody else in that field. Where there us divergence in theory is that this level of greenhouse gases in the past coincided with major ice melting events and significant rises in ocean acidification and ocean level and by the way temperature. This last event was down to volcanic activity. You see I do know this guy and gave read his papers.

Phill Reid I'm outta here. Peter Needham, if your wish to argue facts with this man, good luck. I've found in the past that men like Bob Lawson are so entrenched in their dogma that no man can make them see the light.

Bob Lawson Be insulted all you like Phill Reid. Thank god you lot are in an ever decreasing minority. You are likewise entrenched in your opinion mate and it being a free country you are welcome to it. One day when you are in your 60's or 70's and at at your beach resort 60 kilometers from where the ocean currently is you may remember this conversation. But probably not (he he)

Peter Needham I just treat people how I would like to be treated as much as I possible can Phill - have a great day!

David Daniel Ball Bob Lawson is entitled to his view ,, but he is being obnoxious. I suggest ignoring or blocking him if it worries you.

Bob Lawson Finally the chief blogger himself. And with a personal attack. How strange yet predictable

Phill Reid I think that Bobs behaviour is exhibiting extreme paranoid characteristics

Bob Lawson I think I have made you think a bit David Daniel Ball before you confuse fact with opinion again. That's what all of this was about by the way. State something mate by all means but please don't insult my intelligence by regurgitating climate denial dogma. You can find reputable people to quote such as Peter Needham did very easily. These people at least will give your argument some basis in fact. Have a good day mate

Bob Lawson Gee Phill Reid another oersonal attack. How strange but also somewhat predictable that is. What next am I a trans-sexual cross dressor? You show your uneducated background mate. Gi back to your whacky- weed. There you go there is one of my own and the last by the way to you anyway

Phill Reid And you haven't made personal attacks on anybody here you bloody hypocite ? So far I seen you call people everything from stupid to being morons. You're hypocrisy astounds me as much as your stupidity and dogmatic ways.

Peter Needham Bob - before I go, the passage I assume you were upset about was this..

"Climate scientists chose the top 50 models of climate change and 95% of those models showed the Antarctic Sea Ice would decrease over the next thirty years. Instead, the sea ice has increased to record levels never before measured by satellite."

You have called this climate denial dogma - so can you address the science for us, and explain what is wrong with the statement?

Bob Lawson Right back at ya Phill Reid. The words that spring to mind are narrow-minded redneck biggot. FYI I agree with nearly all the opinions David Daniel Ball says in his blog and that's why I read it. I have never commented before and after the procession of personal abuse it may be some time before I do again. But I will continue to read you blog David.

Phill Reid Good. Thanks Bob. It is all any of us ever wanted. For you to just go away and leave us alone in our ignorance.

Bob Lawson No Peter Needham. Unfortunately that is also correct but it coincides with the sun's cycling between a hot phase and a cooling phase. So yes there will be an increase in ice but it will be temporary. (also stated by your climate history expert if you care to read his papers). By the way David Daniel Ball I suggest you google this guy ASAP. He then says that the polar ice caps could begin accelarated ice loss. That is what some of the modelling suggests also.

Peter Needham "I have never commented before and after the procession of personal abuse it may be some time before I do again"

These are some of your comments Bob.. Call me a historian..

* So I know what I am talking about where as you obviously don't.

* They are not open to spin or selective interpretation by you or any other ratbag climate change sceptic. Thank god you people are in an ever decreasing minority.

* No mate you dream on. You are obviously uneducated in even basic 1st year Uni physics. The dumbest undergraduate will quote you exactly what I have above. You people are the worst frauds and naysayers on the planet.

* And if these words are too big for you to understand I suggest you go and get a few science degrees like I have and maybe you will understand the difference between a blog (opinion piece) and a proper evaluation of the facts.

* And by the way moron I don't vote left or Green

* Insult him, yes I did; I do not tolerate bloggers pretending to knowlegible on climate change and spouting absolute rubbish and pretending it has any scientific basis.

* And keep to your opinion - it isn't worth too much

* What a load of absolute crap. You climate change naysayers are full of it mate.

* You need to learn the difference between an opinion piece (blog) and a factual scientific dissertation.

* But that's all you people have "opinions."

* And that's all you climate change sceptics are. Self perpetuating disseminators of gossip.

In fact, (and this doesn't need peer review) - you started the rudeness. If that's how you roll, then just let others roll with it.

Bob Lawson Yes direct quotes but in response to some pretty ordinary statements from others. In retrospect every one has an opinion; some more informed than others. At the very least I have made some people examine the difference between fact and opinion. My comments in my voting preference etc. were a direct response to a post. It is still there. Likewise the stream of personal insults from Phill were stupid. My responses could likewise have been less strident and for that I apologize

Bob Lawson That's the only flaw in this type of social networking. That is intonation cannot be judged in the written word. I may have reacted to comments in a way not intended by the author. Anyway we are not going to convince each other Peter Needham of the validity of each others opinions

Bob Lawson Bloody hot as hell here in Albury today. Not that I am claiming global warming is here Peter Needham (he he!!). Just commenting on the weather. Ah well back to the world of human spare parts tomorrow. Better go iron some shirts etc. Have a goodun

Bob Lawson FYI Peter Needham the sun cycles between hotter and cooler energy emissions (temperature) over a 90 to 100 year period. 100 years ago there were some if the worst droughts in Australia ever recorded. Greenhouse gas emissions at that time were a fractio...See More

David Daniel Ball So our observations are correct and yet they don't fit your narrative? Cool.

Bob Lawson I knew that would be your response. Read more carefully before you quote me David Daniel Ball. Temperature should be going down faster than it is and has historically. The reason for this is man made. Do I agree with a carbon tax or any other of the le...See More

John Tran Bob Lawson.. You could have said all that what you've just said without all the insults right in the beginning. However I have found this thoroughly amusing

David Daniel Ball .. actually, I do think he is a Milne fan ..

John Tran not Penny Wong?.. DK likes Penny too

Bob Lawson Hi John Tran. Only abusive when I am told I know nothing on this subject or insulted. I copped both today and all for expressing a contrary view. I have tertiary qualifications in industrial chemisty above other things and I make a point of keeping up ...See More

Bob Lawson He he still trying David Daniel Ball. No mate definitely not Green. Milne is a born again communist. Read up on her. political bio. No one seems to have picked up on the fact she was a card carrying communist in dim dark past.

David Daniel Ball Tbh, I got a terminating pass in Physics I, so maybe I'm overqualified to understand AGW alarmism.

David Daniel Ball

Bob Lawson Or maybe you aren't qualified enough David Daniel Ball. Can't help but notice the invective starting to creep back into your posts mate. I threaten your holy grail which is the know nothing - do nothing aproach to climate change. You are dangerous in t...See More

Peter Needham Bob - re the Sun going into a cooling phase.. "Temperature should be going down faster than it is and has historically." Where is this information peer reviewed and published?

Bob Lawson Good one Peter Needham. I suggest you do the research. Just google it mate;I did. But use the advanced settings or it will include blogs from people like David Daniel Ball who according to others
who got into him for his Saturday blog for spouting th...See More

Bob Lawson Hint: marine and antarctic studies Institute is a good place to start.

Peter Needham Bob - I asked you specifically for a link to the peer reviewed info that backs up your interesting sun cycle cooling trend comment, and you tell me to "go find it" ?

If you want us to only post peer reviewed info then perhaps lead by example, and help...See More

Bob Lawson I did mate. when I have time I will go back to my saved searches on my laptop. At work. Can't do it now mate reporting patient cases.

Peter Needham Awesome - thanks Bob - much appreciated..

Bob Lawson Here is one to start with. They state both sides of this argument dispassionately. It is a UK natural history museum. It will leed you to other sites that are not blogs. www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about_us.aspx. note I deliberately have not put any links within this site you as you can search around it and satify yourself that it is what it is

About us - Science Museum
The Science Museum was founded in 1857 as part of the South Kensington Museum, and gained independence in...
SCIENCEMUSEUM.ORG.UK

David Daniel Ball

Bob Lawson Gee David Daniel Ball what's the matter? Don't lije arguing with someone who gives as good as he gets and then backs it up with facts. Facts mate, not "blog speak."


Mandy Mclean many climate blogs are run by scientist Bob! That is a fact. If blogs are cited, what's the issue?

Bob Lawson No problem with blogs as such Mandy Mclean. But they are Opinion pieces and that has to kept in mind when reading them. Especially in this case where the chief blogger is out of his depth on science-related subjects very quickly.

David Daniel Ball


Bob Lawson You will see what I say as yet again the chief blogger has fallen back on sarcasm and invective when faced with a wall of facts that don't agree with his climate change denial ideology

Mandy Mclean they are more than opinion pieces when cited & peer reviewed Bob. Why don't the doomsayers disprove the bloggers? Here, I'll give you a hand..... because they can't!

Bob Lawson Go look at the site I linked to. Then guess what I absolutely can prove it. Blogs are not peer reviewed Mandy Mclean it shows you have little understanding of an academic peer review process is.

Mandy Mclean Please don't pull the boffin on me Bob. Your arrogance is shinning through. I said blogs are more than opinion pieces. I think you already know that many pieces on blogs are peer reviewed & cited..... fully linked for you to check out. Keep the blinkers on!

Paul Corrigan Mandy, I don't see any cited and peer reviewed
material from David
Daniel Ball. ...See More

Mandy Mclean I don't think DDB claims to be a climate expert Paul Corrigan!

Peter Needham Bob - I just would like a link to the peer reviewed work that establishes the reason for the 'global working pause' to be due to the sun on its cooling phase, as you mentioned earlier.. If you can grab it later when you have time that would be awesome - I don't have time to trawl a website for the info at the moment (like you am at work!)

Peter Needham Paul Corrigan - Gravity is observable directly though.. Global warming is thus far directly unobserved, whatever the models (that are continuously failing) say..

Bob Lawson Finally Paul Corrigan a sensible response. Not the stupid animated pictures, invective and sarcasm rom an "uneducated blogger." Resorted to by the way when his silly climate change denial dogma argument falls over. It doesn't take much to make it fall over either.

Paul Corrigan On the other hand, the risk of not acting on the most likely outcome in the case of global warming is so grave that it is an unaffordable
ris to ignore what are the most likely outcomes ie. more frequent,extreme weather events,rising
sea levels, incr...See More

Bob Lawson Oh yes he does Mandy Mclean. He has shot himself in the foot this time. Sarcasm and animated pictures does not an argument make

Mandy Mclean where on his blog, does DDB claim to be a climate scientist or expert?

Bob Lawson Go read the link I sent you Peter Needham. You want proof that's as close a proof as anybody can get. But maybe a government museun is part of the conspiracy theory climate deniers have stated for years. Truth is not open to spin or selective quotation. It is what it is. A museum as I stated is a good pkace for you all to start to be educated.

Bob Lawson Pointless and circular argument Mandy Mclean


Mandy Mclean Not at all Bob Lawson.

A well know climate expert who runs a blog.... named Ball....
http://drtimball.com/

The official website of Dr. Tim Ball
This website examines a wide variety of topics about the way the environment affects humans and the way...
DRTIMBALL.COM

Peter Needham Paul - but if CO2 is not the cause, then what do we can do about it?

http://debatewise.org/.../455-co2-does-not-cause-global.../...See More

Co2 does not cause global warming
It is a commonly accepted theory that increased levels of Co2 are causing an increase in the temperature of the...
DEBATEWISE.ORG

Bob Lawson No they are not peer reviewed mate. Never have been. They are not cited in literature searches for meta analysis reviews such as Cochrane reviews or in published and peer reviewed papers. You show your lack of knowledge in claiming this Mandy Mclean

Peter Needham Sorry Bob - I think I missed that link - I looked and can't find it - can u post again? - Ta!

Bob Lawson Peter Needham I actually thought youwouls take the time to read through what sent you ( remember your comment about respect). Yet when your argument would be severely tested you trot out some silly excuse then resume your climate denier rhetoric. I took the time to read your link mate pay me the same courtesy

Mandy Mclean Tim Ball shares cited, peer reviewed information Bob Lawson. I have a very clear understanding of the peer review process. I use it daily in my work, although I am not a scientist.

Bob Lawson siencemuseum.org.uk that is general site address.

Bob Lawson Well I am a scientist Mandy Mclean. A chief scientist.

Mandy Mclean very good Bob, in what area? Michael Mann also claims to be a scientist!

Bob Lawson Pathology. That's enough on that front as I am not posting anything that will further identify me

Mandy Mclean LOL, so not a climate expert at all! Thank you!

Bob Lawson Well that's just one of my quals mate the others are in physics, biology and industrial chemisty. So what's your claim to fame if we are swapping quals

Bob Lawson Likewise Mandy Mclean Lol, lol, lol. In fits in fact; studied for nearly 17 years in various faculties including medicine. So who's girl Friday are you ( he he). Don't start on the insults mate otherwise right back at ya

Mandy Mclean I'm not famous Bob. I'm not here trying to convince people of the AGW hoax either.

Let's say I'm qualified to knock holes in the computer models the scientists have put together.

Bob Lawson Lets just say you have no tertiary quals at alkt then shall we. That should pretty well be correct. Like all these climate denial people you never let a good blog get in the way of the facts do you

Mandy Mclean Please show me where I insulted you Bob? Was it the Mann comparison or where I mentioned your arrogance? Both are true! Hee Hee....

Mandy Mclean Keep up the bully boy tac tic Bob Lawson, like all the doomsayers do!

Mandy Mclean P.S...... just one more. Are you paid to be here? LOLOLOLOL

Bob Lawson Lets just say you were trying to push my buttons and you did it intentionally. Likewise I get to push yours then you silly, silly person

Stretch Aldo Im a farmer and I understand what is going on when the record floods come more frequently and then the droughts come and then the heat and how much colder its getting in winter.. The extremes are getting much more extreme. There are more extreme weather events and farmers in Australia have already started to take actions to try and adapt to them. Plants only need a couple of degrees change in the over all temperature and they will not produce cherries need to have at least three weeks of cold weather o there are no cherries as an example... I think when you are stuck in the city in your air-conditioned office and homes you lose contact with what is going n in the real world very easily.. When yous reply please dont be abusive use some facts and links to these facts would be great. If yous have some facts share them. I would rather have a discussion than a slanging match..Cheers

Bob Lawson I am getting paid and I can bet it not at your hourly rate
===
Mandy Mclean your behaviour is outshining your 17 years! meh.... but I'm just being silly.

Bob Lawson Go back to theargument Mandy Mclean. If you can. You can't support your naysayers argument past even rudimentary examination and you then resort to personal attack. Just like your chief blogger here.

Bob Lawson Yes you certainly are silly Mandy Mclean

Mandy Mclean I'm still waiting for you to show me where DDB claims to be a climate expert? I'm very patient like that!

Bob Lawson Read his blog then or is your attention span so limited you are only capable of reading the headline. Had enough of you . Won't answer any more of your convoluted circular rubbish arguments.

Mandy Mclean the argument is whether it is man made or a natural occurrence Bob & Stretch.

David Daniel Ball .. I never wrote it and don't think it .. he just wants it to be so, Mandy ..

Bob Lawson Exactly mate. I think they do know how mate but it then immediately contradicts their climate change denial dogma.

Bob Lawson Not true David Daniel Ball I have your uneducated diatribe on climate change for some time now. Come on mate be truthful

David Daniel Ball .. point to it .. I can't find it ..

Bob Lawson No you won't. It's called selective (extracted) quotation David Daniel Ball . You quote what serves you argument and regurgitate selectively if you are challenged. Just like your climate denial dogma mate.

Paul Corrigan You don't need to be a climate expert to make reasoned argument
either,Mandy. You just have to back your statements with convincing examples.
I think a scientist is to be credited over a lay person.Even a GP is a scientist and should be respecte...See More

David Daniel Ball If he had something re AGW he would show it .. he doesn't. I haven't abused him, despite his sensitivity to his claim I have. I don't claim to be an authority on AGW, but I present argument he has not disputed .. I have seen enough

Bob Lawson Good my argument wins out then

David Daniel Ball It is a basic tenet of academia that anyone can present a good argument .. it is the argument that needs to be tested. It doesn't matter my qualifications or wether I use a blog. What matters are basic observations. The world is not heating as AGW alarmism says it should. That should disprove the theory.

Mandy Mclean Oh please Paul Corrigan.... I've studied computer science... does that qualify me? What a load of desperate nonsense.

David Daniel Ball And the climate hysteric demands a tax on plant food ..

Bob Lawson A statement of personal opinion David Daniel Ball not backed up by any scientific opinion and my argument against you blog from the start on this topic. You are really good at the non-science topics mate. Stick to them

Bob Lawson You really are a silly person Mandy Mclean. What's physics then and whats industrial chemistry, you silly little person

David Daniel Ball Too much ice in poles .. too much winter over land .. too little warmth in oceans or atmosphere.

Stretch Aldo I am seeing a lot of statements but no facts about the world not warming how about some links so we can discuss it factually.

David Daniel Ball no it isn't .. http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y

Argument Clinic - Monty Python's The Flying Circus
Subscribe to the Official Monty Python Channel here - htt...
YOUTUBE.COM

Bob Lawson That's exactly what I tried to tell this chief blogger and his followers Stretch Aldo. But it's a bridge too far for them as even admitting that calls into question their climate denial dogma.
Post a Comment